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.

(Huffington Post)   If you're going to make scathing remarks about the voter base, make sure you're not being filmed. Right, Mitt?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 393
    More: Fail, obama, Mitt Romney, David Corn, Erick Erickson, Occupy movement, child tax credit, Laura Ingraham  
•       •       •

7685 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Sep 2012 at 7:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-17 04:27:53 PM
43 votes:
Fundamental ideological differences: Liberals fear something bad will happen to someone who doesn't deserve it. Conservatives fear something good will happen to someone who doesn't deserve it.
2012-09-17 07:56:59 PM
24 votes:
The trouble I'm seeing, especially with DIA, is this Rush Limbaugh interpretation of the word "entitlement." Entitlement, by definition, refers to something that you're entitled to.

I work forty hour weeks, and I'm therefore "entitled" to the wage and benefits that my employers and I negotiated in good faith. If the job goes away, I'm entitled to unemployment compensation. When I hit retirement age, I'll be entitled to a share of what I paid into social security and Medicare.

Yet implicit in the way conservatives wield the word "entitlement" is the idea that these are things that we're not actually entitled to - even if we've worked for them all our lives. So we reach a point where we're not only not entitled to the economic benefits of a forward-thinking free society, we're not even entitled to things we've actually sacrificed for. They seem to imply that EVEN IF you work forty hour weeks, you're still not entitled to food, shelter, or safety.

The reason I vote liberal is because I want to defend the system that gave me those opportunities - partly because I want to make sure that others have those opportunities, and partly because if my own situation goes south, I want the same level of opportunity to rebuild that I had when I created this situation. Unfortunately, this positions me perfectly for an opportunistic conservative to come along and set me tooth-and-claw against my neighbor. "See what you want? You'll have to fight him to get it. See what you've earned? You'll have to fight him to keep it." This must all be very entertaining for the Romneys of the world, throwing morsels to the plebians and watching them destroy each other for a bite.

I want to ask DIA what it would take for me to be entitled to food, shelter, and safety. At what point do you think I've put in enough of a stake in society for that to be my due? Does it involve a tax bracket, or a certain number of hours worked, or a level of commitment to a conservative cause? At what point am I actually entitled to my entitlements?
2012-09-17 04:41:46 PM
22 votes:

Nabb1:

No, they aren't. You're not entitled to anything else from anyone else. Providing for those who cannot provide for themselves is charity, and there's nothing wrong with helping people. But no one has a right to demand the government provide them anything. "A government that has the power to give you something has the power to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson. If you can provide yourself with the necessities in life, you have no right to demand others do so for you.


Look, make the "we're all in this alone" argument with me until you pass out, it will never farking sell with me. We are beholden to each other as a country and should provide a basic level of existence and support to our fellow citizens. Period.

You want me to value money over humanity, a proposition that would be humorous if it wasn't so damn sad.
2012-09-17 04:36:18 PM
13 votes:

Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?

It assumes that those three things are readily available, with no chance of exception or failure, to anyone who wants it. There's a reason we have safety nets, and it's not just because it's the human, civilized thing to have.


Further, he phrased it in such a way that he asserted people want the government to give them those things. I don't know very many people who want life handed to them, because it's bare-bones no-frills kind of life (comparitively speaking vs. other American families, before we get into a pissing contest about mud huts in Africa).

I think those people are just glad knowing the government is available to help them get those things if all other avenues have failed. The alternative is a governing strategy and party that literally, and completely, ignores the plight of people who have fallen on hard times and actively ushers them along the path to ruin. The party that wants to get rid of welfare, of affordable health care, of women's rights to make decisions for their own bodies, of tax credits that benefit the poor, of progressive taxation, of food stamp eligibility, I mean the list just keeps on going.

They are beyond "got mine, f**k you". They seem to believe that failure should just about be punished, and the dregs of society should be encouraged to die, quickly and quietly and without making all that fuss, so the well-to-do can continue their lives of blissful ignorance without having to cast eyes upon the filth.
2012-09-17 09:48:27 PM
10 votes:
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-09-17 09:35:21 PM
10 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: vartian: I believe peopled are entitled to those things.

At least you agree with the statement and are happy to admit it. Everyone else does but seems to be bothered by that fact.


Having seen you on Fark for quite a while you actually seem like decent fellow, however I may personally disagree with you more often than not, so I'm going to make the effort to propose to you what, to me, is an obvious argument that gets overlooked.

First, let's dispense with the notion of 'fair' or 'ethical' because those terms means different things to different people. While I personally feel that it's perfectly fair for us, as a country, to lobby for and support public assistance for those in need, and I also believe that it's fair, given the nature of our governing principles, that we all chip in to help the least among us, I understand that others feel that it's 'unfair' that they're required to do so against their will through the advent of taxation. So, again, let's dispense with fair.

Let's focus on basic sustainability. The reality is this: we live in a competitive world. The very premise of capitalism is competition. Neither our economy nor our society, really, would work without it.

The beauty of a culture that's based on competition is that we all challenge each other to be better, and build upon the successes of individuals to grow the success of the whole.

The problem with a culture that's based on competition is that in every competition there are losers, and as often as not, the ones who lose do so through no real fault of their own. Children born to deadbeat parents, old people that get screwed out of their retirement or never make enough to save for it, mentally or physically handicapped people who can't compete on equal footing with the rest of us.

Those people suffer for the competition that the rest of us thrive on. Sure, there are losers who simply lack ambition or motivation to go anywhere in life, but honestly their lives tend to be crappy anyway. Living in tenement apartments with roommates doing crap jobs for crap pay scraping by on food stamps and sorting through free boxes for clothes is hardly the high life. If they didn't get those food stamps I don't really see them having an epiphany and learning a trade skill to get better work, they'd most likely turn to crime and simply be another kind of burden.

So let's dispense with the 'lazy' folks issue as well. Not only does it realistically represent a distinctly minority fraction, it's not a problem we can actually solve. Loafers and leeches will persist to pick up table scraps never considering doing more, but giving them enough to survive so they don't end up costing us more in the prison system seems like a worthwhile investment.

So what we have left is the people who, through no fault of their own, end up in dire straights or are never in a position to compete on equal footing. Again, we could say tough! Them's the breaks! Have them hole up in a shelter and eat what meager sustenance charity may offer. The issues with that are numerous.

1. Health/Safety
A larger and less cared for population of homeless or vagrant children, elderly, and disabled would substantially contribute to the likelihood of disease outbreaks. Lower standards of hygiene and overall health mean they will be more likely to get sick, more likely to incubate sickness for long periods of time and to spread it more or less anonymously because they can't afford to seek medical treatment until they end up in the emergency room. This means higher risk to public safety. Talk to anyone associated with the CDC, their worst nightmare is a growing vagrant population that doesn't see a doctor until they're almost dead.

2. Crime
Not helping the less fortunate among us will lead to petty larceny, burglary, and violent crime. We only have to look at the state of lower income neighborhoods to conclude that. Desperate people do desperate things. It doesn't mean that poor people are evil, it means that they're going to do what they feel they need to in order to survive or feed their families. If that means mugging someone else because they have been trying to get a job for 2 years and had their unemployment cut, and their food stamps and welfare slashed, and they don't see any other way around it, then so be it.

3. Positive Economic activity
Supply-side economics is a myth. I'm reasonably confident that you know that. So let's dispense with the absurdity of the idea that 'giving rich people more money means economic activity!'. Economic activity is spurred by consumers. Consumers cannot consume without resources. Putting those less fortunate in a position to contribute to general economic activity does far more for the economy than giving people tax breaks. If you'll recall, the majority of the 'stimulus' packages that have occurred over the last several decades have come in the form of checks directly to lower/middle income families that were then used by them to directly infuse money into the economy. Yes, giving away money is not a long term solution to economic problems, but suddenly removing that consumer purchasing power would only hurt things. You better believe that those couple million people spending their food stamps at the local grocery store help employ the checkers, the janitors, the distributers, etc.

4. Common sense
Funding for food stamps and welfare is such a minute fraction of our budget. Less than a penny on the dollar of your taxes. And yet it helps millions of people. Medicare is definitely a burden, but it's also among the most valuable things we do as a country to ensure the health and safety of all of our citizens. For those of us unable to afford private doctors, we depend on the already overburdened health care system. The impact of a single outbreak caused by lack of basic care for the poor/elderly could break the back of that system putting every one in this country at risk.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but I'd appreciate it if you would relent from using tired tropes about how everyone that believes in the use of public funds for the health/wellbeing of those less fortunate is either a bleeding heart or a leech. Some of us simply recognize that there's a lot more to the issue than can be put into a soundbite.
2012-09-17 04:33:12 PM
10 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?


No. I believe peopled are entitled to those things. It is farking ludicrous to even entertain the thought that 47% of the country agrees with me.

Bloody William

Liberals fear something bad will happen to someone who doesn't deserve it care. Conservatives fear something good will happen to someone who doesn't deserve it.
2012-09-18 01:07:09 AM
9 votes:
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-09-17 07:35:33 PM
9 votes:
Fun fact about where those moochers all live -

taxfoundation.org
2012-09-17 05:36:21 PM
9 votes:
Is this where we pretend 'people who live off the government' only means minorities on food stamps and doesn't include the 40 million people on Social Security and Medicare, many of whom survive solely on those programs and vote Republican, or the defense contractors and the thousands who work for them who wouldn't have jobs without massive government funding, who also vote Republican?
2012-09-17 04:44:57 PM
7 votes:
Christ, I would think that we would want to be living in a society in which we considered keeping our people fed to be a minimum standard.
2012-09-18 01:07:08 AM
6 votes:

o5iiawah: Gyrfalcon: It's because of selfish, greedy dicks like this one that we have to have laws requiring taxes to go to social services. Can you even imagine him voluntarily donating any of his hardearned money to charity? F*ck no, if he didn't have to pay taxes he'd be in his basement counting all his extra money like a dragon on its hoard.

Guess what? i do but in a free society, it is none of your farking business what I do with my time or my money. See how this works?



Bullshiat. Nobody as selfish as you and as contemptuous of those unable to manage on their own gives to charity. You consistently demean and deride anyone who isn't as rich, privileged and special as you, and you never hesitate to tell us how you bootstrapped yourself so everyone who doesn't isn't as worthy as you. The only way you and your ilk "give to charity" is as ostentatiously as possible, once a year, probably at Christmas so you can tell yourself what a good person you're being. You hate poor people for being poor, it's obvious in your adamant refusal to acknowledge that sometimes people need some help and your parroting of the same tired talking points that oh so many people are just living large on the government tit.

If you'd ever spent five minutes in a soup kitchen or food bank, you'd never make such an asinine statement, which is how I know you talk a good talk and have no balls for walking the walk. Your god had a word for you: hypocrite.
2012-09-17 09:12:37 PM
6 votes:

GhostFish: RexTalionis: Look, I don't like defending Romney, but I don't really see the big deal about this. He's a candidate running an election with an extremely polarised populace. Of course he's going to denigrate the voters of the other side.

You really think that the Obama campaign doesn't think that a good portion of Romney's base is a bunch of racist whackjobs, either?

This would be like Obama coming out and saying that everyone voting against him is a racist whackjob.


Actually that exact scenario happened in 2008. In an almost perfect mirror image of this situation, Obama was talking to a room full of wealthy liberals when he brought up poverty stricken right wing Pennsylvanians who have become "bitter" from years of downsizing and outsourcing and were now clinging to their "guns and Bibles" and using immigrants as scapegoats to explain their problems.

Which Republicans went on to say meant Obama had just said all the people who won't vote for him are racist whackjobs.

Of course Obama's point was that he wanted to help these people, not that he could then just dismiss them all outright and shouldn't be bothered to worry about getting their votes. Which is exactly what Romney said:

"[M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

That is the line that should be the most damning of all of this. It's not very different from the statement he made earlier this year when he said "I'm not concerned about they very poor". These aren't gaffes, they're indications of his core beliefs.

Obama tried to understand and empathize with the poor on the right who would never vote for him, Romney tried to demonize and dismiss the poor on the left who would never vote for him. I think that speaks volumes about both men.
2012-09-17 07:37:17 PM
6 votes:
What entitled "people" who pay no income tax may look like:

ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com
2012-09-18 12:41:39 AM
5 votes:

shower_in_my_socks:

News: Romney just insulted the entire GOP base. Fark: Most of them don't realize it.


Now THIS should have been the headline.
2012-09-18 12:07:26 AM
5 votes:

o5iiawah: Social security takes 15% right off the top, so I'm not quite sure where 75 comes in.

between contributions to SS, medicare, federal income, state income and the pittance levied by my county, I'm hovering around 40. This is of course before the pre-tax income that I try to invest which sees gains eaten at 15%. Changes to the healthcare law will kibosh my annual increase which of course doesn't offset normal inflation and cost of living adjustments as well. If I'm paying more for basic services thanks to government, this is indirect taxation. Gas went up $.20 in my neighborhood this week which I'm sure had nothing to do with another round of QE. That is taxation.

Of course, this is before I even buy anything.

I get it. We need taxes. I'm happy to pay them, I'm just curious as to how much is fair, how much I should be paying and what more I should be doing for other people?


Dude, farking grow a nutsack and man up. You're not a martyr. You're just another guy who gets up in the morning, clocks in at work and contributes your share like 90% of the rest of us. You're like the Chris Rock bit about fathers who go on and go telling the world about how they "take care of my kids!!" Yeah, no, shiat ... wanna cookie? That's what father's are supposed to do.

You're not a working hero or a burden carrier .... you're just an faceless working stiff like the rest of us ... a whiny, self absorbed, emotionally stunted, self pitying one at that.
2012-09-17 11:40:45 PM
5 votes:
What Mitt actually said is less interesting to me then how he's handling it. Mitt held a hasty presser, seemed flustered that the press wasn't going along with his explanation for events, and walked away after three questions. This is a preview of Mitt handling a national emergency. If he was this flustered by a potential hit to his poll numbers, I sure as hell don't want him leading in a situation where people could actually die.

/where's your smirk now, motherfarker?
2012-09-17 11:08:46 PM
5 votes:
25.media.tumblr.com
2012-09-17 10:14:41 PM
5 votes:
I was going to vote 3rd party because I hated Romney loooong before this bullcrap but not a big Obama fan either.
Now I'm voting Obama just to help make sure Mitt gets flushed down a frikin crapper.

New Obama supporter.
Never took a dime from the government in my long ass life.

Romney can eat a bag of cock.
2012-09-17 09:52:35 PM
5 votes:

bgilmore5: The notion that the private sector will take care of social welfare is laughable.



My response to right-wingers who tout this is "What's stopping them from doing it now?" Churches are already tax exempt. Why do we still have homelessness, and people with mental illnesses living in alleys, and starving kids? The private sector can't even FILL THE GAP left where government organizations fall short, and we're to believe the private sector could shoulder the entire burden if the government programs were cut?
2012-09-17 08:16:03 PM
5 votes:
I, namegoeshere, feel that I am entitled to affordable healthcare for myself and my family. I feel as a human being, that I should not have to go bankrupt because of a serious accident or illness. I should not have to choose between my retirement, my children's education, and death. Yes, you farking douchebag, I am entitled to that.
2012-09-17 07:40:50 PM
5 votes:
Also, yes I think human beings are entitled to housing and food. No, the rare person that is genuinely lazy as opposed to the many who toil in poverty or near poverty doesn't change that. Yes, the lazy person deserves food too, being that Jesus taught me to care for my fellow man without any stipulation - and really any decent set of ethics, whether based on religious background or not, would say the same thing.
2012-09-17 07:33:22 PM
5 votes:
Hey can we start with these people who "pay no taxes first"?

As of 2009, more than 20,000 filers making more than $200,000 a year - 1,470 of whom had adjusted gross income of more than $1 million - owed no income tax, a Detroit Free Press analysis showed.

Can we start with them and the corporation who pay no taxes? Or is that different?
2012-09-17 04:48:34 PM
5 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: vartian: Look, make the "we're all in this alone" argument with me until you pass out, it will never farking sell with me

How about you take care of yourself FIRST, then look to help others?


What does this even mean? I work 55+ hours a week. I have health insurance. I'm good. This changes nothing about the level of poverty in this country.

It is bizarre how some of you guys come up against compassion and can think of nothing else to do but shout at it until it goes away.
2012-09-17 04:24:23 PM
5 votes:
Go f*ck yourself, Mitt

/seriously, FOAD
2012-09-17 04:16:12 PM
5 votes:
"dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Yeah, those soldiers and veterans need to shut the f*ck up.
2012-09-18 02:02:45 AM
4 votes:

thatguyoverthere70: Who knew the Occupy Wall Street crowd were right all this time?



Well... a lot of us, actually.
2012-09-18 01:17:09 AM
4 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org

Son, I am disappoint.
2012-09-17 11:10:51 PM
4 votes:

o5iiawah: We arent a society where a minority provide and the majority receive.


No one said we were, asshole. I work, I pay taxes (income, property, etc..), and I have compassion for others who are less fortunate, and don't mind if my tax dollars help them. What's YOUR excuse for being a sub-human piece of shiat?

o5iiawah: Go fark yourself if you think you're entitled to someone else's property simply because you exist.


Hey, look, I found a picture of you in the background. 

4.bp.blogspot.com 

It's too bad we can feed the f*cking idiots like you in this country to the starving children.
2012-09-17 10:24:33 PM
4 votes:
dailydish.typepad.com

News: Romney just insulted the entire GOP base. Fark: Most of them don't realize it.
2012-09-17 10:01:28 PM
4 votes:
Coupla things:
1) His comment about 47% wanting handouts, feeling entitled etc. shows an incredible disdain for nearly half the population of the country. Him saying this, and clearly believing it, shows that he: is a bad leader; has no respect for half the country; is an elitest asshole. (Imagine how you'd feel about your boss bad-mouthing half of your co-workers like that....You'd lose respect for him, wouldn't you?)

2) Him saying this... "I have inherited nothing. There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."
...shows that he's a delusional, self-aggrandizing, asshole. Yeah, going to the best private prep schools in the country and having a dad who was an ex-governor and spending Vietnam in PARIS for god's sake, was very bootstrappy of you Mitt. Fark. YOU.
2012-09-17 09:24:59 PM
4 votes:

AdolfOliverPanties: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "All right -- there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

I am part of the 47% and I am not dependent on the government for anything besides roads, public schools, fire department, police etc.

I don't need housing, food or health care provided from the government.

Does Romney truly believe that EVERYONE who votes for Obama is on the dole?


Me too. I pay for these things. I will vote for Obama to prevent a free loader like Mitt Romney getting any where near the White House. 47k tax credit for a farking dancing horse. Free loader indeed. Between me and Mitt Romney there's only one free loader and I don't have a bloody dancing horse.
2012-09-17 09:00:10 PM
4 votes:
"95% of life is set up for you if you are born in this country."
We built this.
2012-09-17 08:57:08 PM
4 votes:
If Mitt wants to biatch about 47% not paying income taxes, he better show his.
2012-09-17 08:44:38 PM
4 votes:
I am voting for Obama. I am employed. I provide my own food and housing and pay for my own health insurance. To say that I, and the 47% of other Americans who will vote for Obama no matter what expect those things to be provided for me by the government is disgusting and patently false. Oh, and I also paid a greater percentage of income tax than Romney did last year.
2012-09-17 08:37:46 PM
4 votes:
As it turns out, Mitt Romney is a really horrible human being. Who knew? Oh, wait, more than 47% of us did. Now, get your asses out and vote.
2012-09-17 08:35:52 PM
4 votes:

Corvus: stainedglassdoll: The job market needs to be fixed. The ever widening income/class gap needs to be fixed. Without direct acknowledgment and plans for these remedies, the GOP won't solve any problems.

But what Romney want's to do is play class warfare and pretend why the country is not doing better is because of all the poor, old and sick people not working hard enough.


the contempt this silver spoon asshole has for the working poor genuinely angers me.
2012-09-17 08:29:35 PM
4 votes:
I am going to leave this here (Warning: citations and math ahead):

- 8.2% of unemployment payments are attributed to technical overpayment, but only 1.9% of unemployment welfare is due to fraud. So, ~90% of unemployment welfare is legitimate by current rules of eligibility.
Link

- Less than 25% of the entire federal budget goes to DHHS, the department that controls TANF (the program that funds poor families). Less than 2% of the DHHS budget goes to TANF. Mathematically, that means only 0.5% of the entire federal budget goes to fund low income families this way. Hardly the money sink the GOP is making it out to be. Furthermore, TANF is capped (lifetime) at 5 years, and 90% of recipients have fewer than 3 children.
Link
Link
Link

It is easy to blame the poor, to say they deserve it, to say they don't want to work, that they are lazy. Of course this is true for some, but not for all. It is easy to blame them because to accept otherwise is to admit that it could happen to you, and no one wants to believe that they could be burdened with misfortune despite good intentions and hard work and effort. But they not our enemies, they are friends, family members, coworkers, people like us.

The job market needs to be fixed. The ever widening income/class gap needs to be fixed. Without direct acknowledgment and plans for these remedies, the GOP won't solve any problems.
2012-09-17 07:56:10 PM
4 votes:

RexTalionis: GhostFish: RexTalionis: Look, I don't like defending Romney, but I don't really see the big deal about this. He's a candidate running an election with an extremely polarised populace. Of course he's going to denigrate the voters of the other side.

You really think that the Obama campaign doesn't think that a good portion of Romney's base is a bunch of racist whackjobs, either?

This would be like Obama coming out and saying that everyone voting against him is a racist whackjob.

Okay, Obama knows better than saying that, even in private. But you can't tell me that a good number of liberals aren't thinking that exact thought.


Good point Romney said something stupid but lets not ignore a completely hypothetical thing we can make up and blame liberals for.

Serious, stop the trying to pass blame around when the other side didn't even do anything.
2012-09-17 07:53:09 PM
4 votes:
Dancin_in_Anson reminds me of Romney himself in a lot of ways. He talks an awful lot, but you really have very little idea what he stands for or what point he's trying to make most of the time.
2012-09-17 07:37:45 PM
4 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?


Rich people are "sociopathic assholes" who "only care about money" and would "screw over 1,000 people to make $1 more".

Is this an inaccurate statement?
2012-09-17 07:28:53 PM
4 votes:
www.naturalhealth365.com
Look how smug and entitled this women is!!!! When rich people are paying up to 14% in taxes!!! How can we let this stand!!! She needs to pay more so the rich can pay less!!!
2012-09-17 05:15:26 PM
4 votes:
Also, you'll have to be more specific about what benefits she was keeping, from where, and what was she turning down? It sounds like she was already employed. If it would put her on a different economic level that would result in her keeping less money, there's no reason for her to quit her old job. Similarly, if the health benefits offered by her old job are greater than the increase in salary offered by her new job, there's no reason for her to quit her old job. If you offered me $5,000 more than I'm getting now but I wouldn't have as good coverage in the things I need, I'm probably going to say no.

Of course, the ACA is working to fix that issue, which will eventually mean I could consider such offers, thanks to regulations of insurance.
2012-09-17 05:00:39 PM
4 votes:

impaler: 47% is equal to the percentage of people that didn't pay federal INCOME taxes in 2009


Speaking of which, I would love to see what Romney paid in federal income taxes in 2009.
2012-09-17 04:47:24 PM
4 votes:

Nabb1: What's your own personal stake in that? Like six bucks? Do you accepts the PayPal?


I want interest, too. Like you said, you aren't entitled to anything from anyone else, and you don't have the right to demand the government provide you with anything. Your flood protection and oil spill clean up aren't any different than someone else's food stamps.
2012-09-17 04:47:03 PM
4 votes:
But Obama is the divisive one. Right.
2012-09-17 04:41:34 PM
4 votes:

Nabb1: "A government that has the power to give you something has the power to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson. If you can provide yourself with the necessities in life, you have no right to demand others do so for you.


"The poor who have neither property, friends, nor strength to
labor, are boarded in the houses of good farmers, to whom a
stipulated sum is annually paid. To those who are able to help
themselves a little, or have friends from whom they derive some
succor, inadequate however to their full maintenance,
supplementary aids are given which enable them to live
comfortably in their own houses, or in the houses of their
friends."

-Thomas Jefferson. Notes on Virginia, 1782.
2012-09-17 04:39:55 PM
4 votes:

Nabb1: No, they aren't. You're not entitled to anything else from anyone else. Providing for those who cannot provide for themselves is charity, and there's nothing wrong with helping people. But no one has a right to demand the government provide them anything. "A government that has the power to give you something has the power to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson. If you can provide yourself with the necessities in life, you have no right to demand others do so for you.


So does that mean I can have the money back that was given to Louisiana after the hurricanes and the oil spill?
2012-09-17 04:22:53 PM
4 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?



Yes.
2012-09-17 04:21:50 PM
4 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?


Yes it is. He said 47%. 47% might want access to affordable health care insurance and employment. The number of people as a percentage that want a free ride, would in theory be at least less than the unemployment rate or do you assume all people who can't find work are lazy?
2012-09-18 05:58:25 AM
3 votes:
I think it is time we roll the quote out again:

"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it."


― Stephen Colbert
2012-09-18 02:42:26 AM
3 votes:

Sabyen91: I am sure he is talking about the 15% that you and your employer pay but it seems weird to include the employer contribution.


I agree with him on that. The employer isn't really contributing, if you believe in true fair market pricing for wages. It's like how "companies don't pay taxes, the consumer does!" A worker passes the costs of their taxes onto the employer.

Anyway, it means the bottom 20% have a higher federal tax rate than Romney - who is calling those people mooches because they don't pay a high enough rate on one specific federal tax, despite the fact they have a total federal tax rate higher than Romney.

Freepers were excited that we "need this discussion." They're right about needing the discussion, but they have no clue how wrong they are on the facts.
2012-09-18 12:34:54 AM
3 votes:

o5iiawah: Without millionaires and billionaires, we wouldn't even have medicare or medicaid so thank them. As far as closing loopholes and simplifying the tax code, i am all for it.

kapaso: Every law or program that has ever been passed or even written was in reaction to a problem

In the case of SS, it was a law passed by government in response to a problem created by government and exacerbated by government


You can't blame SS on millionaires and billionaires. Contribution is capped at around $100,000, and benefits are correlated to contribution.

You piece of shat Republican scum
2012-09-18 12:16:11 AM
3 votes:

o5iiawah: I'm in favor of a small safety net to help individuals out and my state (PA) has a small income tax which supports those things. Consequently, I am relatively close to my local representatives who vote on these laws at the state level.


This is the "United States". Says so on the seal. This is not "the 50 separate kingdoms/countries which happen to border each other". One country, that's the deal. It's the reason why states like the one I live in pick up the tab for red states, even though some of us would rather build a wall around them "Escape From New York" style and leave them to their own fate.
Don't like it, you know what to do.

Amazing that the people who will tolerate and sometimes even welcome bigotry, intolerance, waste, sloth, fraud, incompetence, and outright criminality on the part of their local officials will lapse into fits of foaming madness if such activity is even rumoured to be occurring on the federal level.
In essence, "they're assholes, but they're our assholes!"

Local control of everything is not always desirable, especially when that local control tends to border on the stupid.
2012-09-17 11:52:00 PM
3 votes:

Vlad_the_Inaner: o5iiawah: In the absence of a crime, When did one person incur a debt to take care of another?


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

You could move to a country that isn't based on this contract if you don't want to take care of other people.
2012-09-17 11:41:50 PM
3 votes:
imageshack.us

Huh. I guess Mittens only grins when he's talking about dead Americans. When it's his campaign that's dead, he turns into Mr. Frowny Pants.
2012-09-17 11:34:08 PM
3 votes:

spongeboob: o5iiawah: mainstreet62: No one said we were, asshole. I work, I pay taxes (income, property, etc..), and I have compassion for others who are less fortunate, and don't mind if my tax dollars help them. What's YOUR excuse for being a sub-human piece of shiat?

As do I, but I dont sit here with a straight face and think that some people exist solely to provide.

I pay taxes and obey the laws and I'm tired of being called a greedy dick because I'd like to keep half of my paycheck

Tell me how you don't get to keep half your paycheck.


It's because of selfish, greedy dicks like this one that we have to have laws requiring taxes to go to social services. Can you even imagine him voluntarily donating any of his hardearned money to charity? F*ck no, if he didn't have to pay taxes he'd be in his basement counting all his extra money like a dragon on its hoard.
2012-09-17 11:30:55 PM
3 votes:

o5iiawah: I pay taxes and obey the laws and I'm tired of being called a greedy dick because I'd like to keep half of my paycheck


You're not a greedy dick because you'd like to keep half your paycheck.

Romney, however, is a greedy dick because he pays 15% of his real and tangible gains as taxes now, finds it contemptible that he's paying that much, and under his proposed tax structure would instead pay (Bill Clinton voice) ZEE ROH.
2012-09-17 11:13:12 PM
3 votes:
How does a person incur a debt to take care of another person.

The generation ahead of me built this country for me so I owe them something.
The generation that comes after me, I would like them to be able to do their part when they get older and to help take care of me when I am older so I guess i need to provide for them.
2012-09-17 11:12:45 PM
3 votes:
bristle.files.wordpress.com
2012-09-17 10:21:14 PM
3 votes:
this kind of thing reminds me of something I read 20 or more years ago, and I think it was a reported account by Herman Melville but I can't actually find it. If anybody else remembers this please let me know!

In a fishing community on the northeast coast, in the 1700's or 1800's, an unmarried mother with her two young children fall into a sink hole. This is on some fairly major thoroughfare in the town. Despite the cries of the children, nobody rescues them or helps them. One of the children dies, then the mother, then the other child. The bodies stink and somebody finally gets around to pouring lime down the hole.

This to me is emblematic of libertarianism. If you are a penniless, friendless person who falls in a pit, nobody will help you. You will be left to die and the only charity around is somebody shelling out for the lime to cover your rotting corpse. Atheist Randroids say "oh well the church will help you" - yeah if the local churches deem you fit to help. Single mothers and gay people need not apply.

\ atheist liberal / civil libertarian
\\ lived in a Southern town where a local church set up a fund to help teenage mothers ... but only if they were married. Single? tough luck.
2012-09-17 10:08:52 PM
3 votes:
Holy shiatsnacks, what an arrogant douchebag.

My dad used to say, "Being right early is not good in politics."
Yeah, he also said "One year [tax return] could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul."

If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see-without actually doing anything-we'll actually get a boost in the economy.

fark you, you self important, sanctimonious asshole.
2012-09-17 09:47:43 PM
3 votes:

Nabb1: vartian: Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?

No. I believe peopled are entitled to those things. It is farking ludicrous to even entertain the thought that 47% of the country agrees with me.

No, they aren't. You're not entitled to anything else from anyone else. Providing for those who cannot provide for themselves is charity, and there's nothing wrong with helping people. But no one has a right to demand the government provide them anything. "A government that has the power to give you something has the power to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson. If you can provide yourself with the necessities in life, you have no right to demand others do so for you.


The notion that the private sector will take care of social welfare is laughable. The private sector has the opportunity to do that by paying living wages. Good luck having the money to buy food, shelter, and health insurance if you work at McDonald's or Walmart. Hell, you can work at both plus Target and still not earn a livable wage. There are private charities doing great things, but food banks, free clinics, and homeless shelters will never completely cover the demand. Take away charitable deductions, as Republicans would do, and you have an even bigger problem.
2012-09-17 09:44:53 PM
3 votes:
The idiots defending this are almost as tin eared as Romney, and they're getting owned in this thread so bad it's ridiculous. A lot of these previous gaffes have been tempests in teapots IMHO, but this one deserves to stick.

Obama campaign ads:
Show a cancer patient going bankrupt, then play Romney's clip.
Show a homeless child, then play Romney's clip.
Show a college student, then play Romney's clip.
Show a veteran, then play Romney's clip.

What do you love about America? The mountains? The buildings? Not the environment, of course. Certainly not the government. How about loving the people of America for a change?

American citizens work hard, they play by the rules, and they expect to get ahead. Instead, they're working harder, longer, and for less. They aren't rich and they don't get the breaks, the perks, or the special treatment that the rich get. And here we have a guy running to be president who still has to shiat all over their efforts. Way to unify and inspire the people, great leader.

And most of his supporters claim to be Christian, yet they're HORRIFIED at the thought of poor people getting help, or they hate the lazy so much they're willing to take away help from deserving people just to punish the layabouts. What's so Christian about that? It makes me sick. What good is a religion if it only leads you to hate and hypocrisy, and provides no moral compass?

It's very sad. And every "conservative" that ever complained about "class warfare" deserves a swift kick in the yarbles. I hope Romney loses in a landslide.
2012-09-17 09:33:56 PM
3 votes:
The only time Mitt ever appears passionate and non-robotic is when he's going on class warfare tirade against fellow Americans.
2012-09-17 09:09:22 PM
3 votes:
Sounds an awful lot like Mitt is using the dangerous language of class warfare to breed contempt of one side of Americans against the other. So who's he declaring war against?



www.taxpolicycenter.org

Mostly the elderly, and working families who get exempt from paying income taxes because they qualify for enough deductions through things like housing, marriage and child deductions that their liability is net zero.
2012-09-17 09:08:35 PM
3 votes:
Nothing is going to change.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle keep declaring "War" on the effects, but nobody does a damn thing about the causes. War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism- these are all wars on the side- effects of the real problem: the predatory program of exploitation by the rich. Exploitation of natural resources, (with the accompanying meddling in the governments in the Middle East,) THAT'S where your problem in terrorism really comes from. Exploitation of human resources, with the attendant lack of any hopes for the future-THERE'S the cause of your poverty and drug use. But any real measures to help the little guy get ahead- that's "Class Warfare and "socialism". The rich are on top of the heap, and they plan to stay there. The "American Dream" is a threat to them, for it represents their supplantment by somebody else at the top of the pecking order.
2012-09-17 08:59:25 PM
3 votes:
Speaking of Americans who don't pay taxes, Mitt, can we see your returns from 2009?
2012-09-17 08:56:00 PM
3 votes:
A guy who only pays a 13% tax rate is denigrating others for how little they pay in taxes. Cute.
2012-09-17 08:45:06 PM
3 votes:
Mitt Romney dodged the war in Vietnam by moving to France, and he's now saying that disabled vets who rely on the government are losers.

Candidate Mittens is 100x worse than I ever imagined.
2012-09-17 08:42:03 PM
3 votes:
One of the things at work here (I think) is a Fundamental Attribution Error. In other words: If I fail it's because of circumstances beyond my control. But if YOU fail it's because you're lazy and stupid and you dress funny.
2012-09-17 08:28:45 PM
3 votes:

Lawnchair: GAT_00: Is this where we pretend 'people who live off the government' only means minorities on food stamps and doesn't include the 40 million people on Social Security and Medicare, many of whom survive solely on those programs and vote Republican, or the defense contractors and the thousands who work for them who wouldn't have jobs without massive government funding, who also vote Republican?

This is the big, big question.

If Obama's people can convince Mr. and Mrs. AARP that he's very much talking about them (and there's no way to get anywhere near that 47% number without talking very clearly about them), then the election should be a bloodbath. On the other hand, though, there's no demographic whose allegiances are more well-cemented (not entirely one way or the other, but individually cemented) than the over-65 voters.


Yeah, you're talking about my father. A Teabagger, who, ten years ago, at 61, had a major stroke which left him half paralyzed. He ran thru his $1 million lifetime limit insurance then had to go on disability and medicare. He and his wife pay zero federal income taxes, yet supported every dumbass thing that ran up the deficits under Bush. I and my wife, with our three kids, pay federal income taxes and both parts of SSI/Medicare because we are self-employed. We will never vote for a Republican because they have lost their petty little minds.
2012-09-17 08:19:43 PM
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?


No, I absolutely agree with it. I believe that america, the richest country in the world, can afford to provide food, housing, and health care to all citizens.

Mitt also knows we can easily afford it, but he has some sort of mental illness that demands that he grab as much as possible for himself.
2012-09-17 08:06:16 PM
3 votes:
It's one thing for propaganda parrots to squawk this grotesque horseshiat about how everyone struggling to get by are goddamn parasites, but to have an actual candidate call 47% of americans parasites is obscene.

That someone could be that viciously, smugly, arrogantly oblivious to the struggles of people who work at the kind of shiate jobs that I thank god I don't have to work at, disgusts me.

If you think the problem with America is minimum wage earners not paying enough income tax to go with their payroll, sales etc taxes, while Mitt Romney pays too much income tax than you disgust me as well.
2012-09-17 07:55:09 PM
3 votes:

Lost Thought 00: So, if Romney doesn't consider access to food and shelter a basic human right, what exactly do all those charities he claims to donate to actually provide?


It's mostly just one charity. It provides: Funding for young Mormons who go out and pester people in an attempt to get them to become Mormon. Also presumably new temples, and of course donations to anti gay marriage campaigns in other states.
2012-09-17 07:54:02 PM
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Bloody William: It assumes that those three things are readily available

They are.


As I'm done being civil with you idiots; go stick your head in a donkey's ass, you cock. We'll fix it without you, like we always do.
2012-09-17 07:50:11 PM
3 votes:
I think we all know Romney does not give one flying fark about me or you but to hear it spoken out loud like that is still a little jarring.
2012-09-17 07:47:34 PM
3 votes:

Cletus C.: Corvus: Cletus C.: Corvus: Cletus C.: The things he said, I thought they were facts. Why are Democrats suddenly so afraid of facts?

That people bankrupt because they have medical bills because they are dying of cancer we should tax them more and throw them on the street? You agree with that?

Are you the same person who created the ad where Romney killed the laid off worker's wife?

I am asking you a question. Is that person "entitled" to their medical care? Yes or No? Romney was implying they should pay more in taxes and if they can't afford it should be thrown on the streets. Is that not right?


If I am saying something which he disagress tell me.

Is what he said not enough for you? You need to apply your own twisted implications.

All the other libs managed to pee themselves over what was presented. Why are you so special?


What "twisted implications"? Is someone bankrupt from cancer care not one of these people he is talking about with such disdain?

2012-09-17 07:46:16 PM
3 votes:

Smelly McUgly: Also, yes I think human beings are entitled to housing and food. No, the rare person that is genuinely lazy as opposed to the many who toil in poverty or near poverty doesn't change that. Yes, the lazy person deserves food too, being that Jesus taught me to care for my fellow man without any stipulation - and really any decent set of ethics, whether based on religious background or not, would say the same thing.


Let's also not fall into the trap of assuming that all genuinely lazy people are receiving entitlements. I've carved out a nice career over 15 years of spending 60% of my working hours on Fark.com and other online distractions, and 20% in the bathroom. My seniority affords me the cube on the back corner of my office and I can see everyone's monitor, so I know I'm not alone.
2012-09-17 07:41:39 PM
3 votes:

Nabb1: But no one has a right to demand the government provide them anything.


Baloney. Just as an example, American citizens have every right to demand the government provide those things the Constitution spells out as the government's responsibility to provide.
2012-09-17 07:41:36 PM
3 votes:

beta_plus: Corvus: What entitled "people" who pay no income tax may look like:

[ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com image 452x693]

Taxing corporations does not work. They do one of 3 things:
1) raise prices
2) cut dividends
3) fire workers


They will always pass the cost onto someone else.
This is not because they are evil. They are at a different point on the chain of production and consumption.

Try taking some basic non-Keynesian Macro Economics so you don't sound like an idiot.


Why, it didn't work for you.
2012-09-17 07:27:11 PM
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: impaler: What do you think we're doing?

Creating a dependency class that come to EXPECT..."help" regardless of ability to pull themselves out otherwise.

[csb]

Local lady was offered a promotion within her place of employment. This promotion brought with it supervisory duties, more responsibilities, opportunities for further advancement, FREE training to further these opportunities and most importantly a substantial raise. Exactly the way it's supposed to work right? She turned it down because she would lose her benefits...and not the ones she already has with her employer. THAT is some farked up shiat right there and is what takes away from those that really NEED it.
[/csb]


And that may happen once in a while, but realistically, it's not going to be often. Most of the people who are receiving benefits are not going to turn down an opportunity to make more money, etc, just to keep benefits. Most of them aren't likely to get that opportunity, sadly. Cases like this one are probably extremely rare.

Of course in any benefit system there is going to be some fraud, and some waste, and some abuse. I don't think there's any way around it. But let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good here - the vast majority of people taking benefits aren't one job interview away from the middle class. I'm willing to pay the price to help these folks keep their heads above water, even if I'm also paying for a few jerks who are gaming the system.

And let's also remember that the social safety net is good for those of us who will never need it. To some extent, it's a social stability program as well. Desperate and poor people sometimes do desperate things. Helping to keep them at least fed and sheltered keeps those things from happening. During the era of the New Deal, the desperate and crazy things were communism and fascism, which are probably not as big of a danger today, but as the riots 20 years ago in my city showed, it doesn't take much to set people off, and it's damn hard to stop them once they've started.
2012-09-17 05:53:26 PM
3 votes:
In a separate video, Romney talks about his success. "Both my dad and [wife] Ann's dad did quite well in their lives. But when they came to the end of their lives and passed along the inheritance to Ann and me, we both decided to give it all away. So I have inherited nothing. Everything that Ann and I have, we earned the old-fashioned way."

Romney's parents did pay for his boarding school, his college, his graduate school and his first home.


I am in no way the minority in this country when I say that my parents paid for nothing for me. I am lucky to say that I've had a couch to sleep on and food to eat for a few months when my marriage ended and I was starting over (thanks grandpa). I consider myself fortunate to have had that when I needed it.

I want a strong safety net in place. Whether I ever use it or not, I want it. You just never know. Plus, it is part of being a, well, civilized society.
2012-09-17 04:57:49 PM
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: vartian: Look, make the "we're all in this alone" argument with me until you pass out, it will never farking sell with me

How about you take care of yourself FIRST, then look to help others?


What do you think we're doing?
2012-09-17 04:26:34 PM
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?


It assumes that those three things are readily available, with no chance of exception or failure, to anyone who wants it. There's a reason we have safety nets, and it's not just because it's the human, civilized thing to have.
2012-09-17 04:24:07 PM
3 votes:

Aarontology: "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Yeah, those soldiers and veterans need to shut the f*ck up.


I for one don't consider compensation for services rendered the same thing as public entitlements.
2012-09-17 04:18:39 PM
3 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Aarontology: "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Yeah, those soldiers and veterans need to shut the f*ck up.

And old people and children.


It's the Republican Christian thing to do, after all.
2012-09-18 06:48:14 AM
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-09-18 02:28:54 AM
2 votes:
A rare candid statement from Romney. He truly despises most Americans. A smug, arrogant elitist.
2012-09-18 02:10:06 AM
2 votes:
It's the absolute disgust and disdain he has for half the country he hopes to lead.
2012-09-18 02:01:15 AM
2 votes:
I have read this whole thread. Epic.

About the size of this story: Romney's Egyptian embassy screwup was entertaining, but I don't think many swing voters paid much attention to the details. The tax returns are a bit bigger, but still not a big deal to the undecideds (even though it should be).

This one might be different. It sure appears that blood is in the water. The 10pm EST press conference is the political equivalent of a four alarm fire, and there's no denying that on the very day the campaign was changing course they're suddenly back on defensive in a major way. And this is no minor PR headache; it appears now to be the biggest of the campaign to date. Nothing starts a media firestorm like the words "secret video."

It will barely hurt him with his base, but the undecideds might be a little put off. Romney might still be able to survive, but he better hope like hell that there's nothing worse coming out on the full tape tomorrow. If there is, that might be it for him... and we're still two weeks away from the first debate! Unbelievable.

Romney wasn't my choice, but up until today, I didn't actually think of him as a bad person. Now he seems like a complete and utter creep.

Who knew the Occupy Wall Street crowd were right all this time?
2012-09-18 01:53:18 AM
2 votes:

InmanRoshi: People just think they've seen race baiting and dog whistle blowing up to this point, but they haven't seen anything yet. Mitt can't walk this back, so he's got no choice but to tall all in and clarify that when he points to "them" he doesn't mean Granny Myrtle getting her social security check, he means THEM. THEM coming to get YOURS. And he's going to spend a few hundred million or so in ads to drive home this clarification.


i.imgur.com
2012-09-18 01:12:37 AM
2 votes:

Sabyen91: The explanation from Romney's camp right now is he was speaking "off the cuff". I am not sure how that is a defense, though.


Off the cuff remarks are usually more revealing of character than prepared and rehearsed statements. I'd say that we just got a glimpse of the real, elitist, hater of the needy that Romney really is.
2012-09-18 01:05:37 AM
2 votes:
This video has been around(but not sourced adequately for the press) for at least a month and was apparently bubbling up over the weekend but Romney and his campaign STILL couldn't come up with an intelligible response.

He's not even a competent middle manager.
2012-09-18 01:00:51 AM
2 votes:

Guntram Shatterhand: Mitt Romney may be the greatest Republican contender ever. Not only did he just piss off his base for no real gain, he has singlehandedly brought back both the tax return question (speaking of welfare queens) and class warfare into public consciousness. He's basically daring people to vote against him out of some misguided notion that he has a lock on the election. It's not even hubris, it's utter stupidity. He's not just going to lose the election, he's not just going to sink the Republicans either. He's going to singlehandedly become the poster child of why holding the rich up to some kind of gold standard is the stupidest thing you can do.


Thing is, he didn't piss off his base though. He probably got them more excited to vote for him. There's this nebulous conservative ideology that there are hordes of minorities suckling the teat of big government at the expense of white taxpayers. Even if the white taxpayer in question doesn't pay federal income tax and is reliant on entitlement programs to survive. Conservative voters will see Romney's statements, nod their heads at a big government punishing the white man, then go cash their Social Security check without batting an eye. The guy on unemployment down at the bar isn't "one of those people" either. He's got circumstances that make it all right for him, but not for anyone else.

The overriding philosophy that drives conservative voters is "I got mine, so fark you." Logic and consistency don't play any part.
2012-09-18 12:49:48 AM
2 votes:
So let me get this straight: he goes from trying to reach out to the Hispanic population because he knows he can't win without them and the GOP has pissed them away. Then he goes on some mad tirade about '47%' of Americans that simply aren't worth shiat because of policies that benefited him. And he's still hiding his tax returns?

Mitt Romney may be the greatest Republican contender ever. Not only did he just piss off his base for no real gain, he has singlehandedly brought back both the tax return question (speaking of welfare queens) and class warfare into public consciousness. He's basically daring people to vote against him out of some misguided notion that he has a lock on the election. It's not even hubris, it's utter stupidity. He's not just going to lose the election, he's not just going to sink the Republicans either. He's going to singlehandedly become the poster child of why holding the rich up to some kind of gold standard is the stupidest thing you can do.

And the Republicans know it. They know the party is over, and has been ever since 2007 when people just wanted Dubya gone and out of power. They've been trying to find new angles to plump their nest egg or fall into high paying positions where they don't have to do much. There's no defense in the modern-day GOP to counter class warfare. Once the guilt and stigma is gone, the Republicans are where they are now: petty little assholes stealing pennies to throw in the bank. And the backlash hasn't even begun yet.

No wonder why the Democrats wanted him as a candidate. He's not as insanely retarded as the rest of the pack were, but Romney is the ramp to the new Southern Strategy. And the Republicans have absolutely no recourse.
2012-09-18 12:38:12 AM
2 votes:

o5iiawah: themeaningoflifeisnot: No shiat, Sherlock. But it does inform us as to the intent of our Founders. Read any history of their early struggles in trying to come up with a workable central government plan and you'll see that they never envisioned simply an eat what you kill society.

to be blessed with liberty is to be absent of coercion. The founders envisioned a society where people could prosper as they wanted, practice religion as they wanted and in the aggregate, everyone would be better off. The unfortunate would be better off in a free society versus a control society as would the worker or the farmer.

If you can cite me a federalist paper or document which alleges that our founders intended for a central government whose primary responsibility was provision and security not from invasion or injustice but from want, I'd be happy to answer it.

Ours is a society founded on liberty. That includes stuff you like and some stuff you might not like. Still, i challenge people on the narrative that without a central authority, society would collapse and people would starve. There's plenty of examples in our history of the generosity of one group to another as the reason for a community's survival - not the existence of a state or federal program that kept someone from starving.

You're pushing a narrative that doesn't exist.


I'm pushing a narrative that doesn't exist? And you're the one who thinks that the Founders really worried about making sure people could practice any religion they wished. Seriously?

And your challenge to people to show you how society would collapse and people would starve without a central authority is simply an argument that your belief that it wouldn't happen that way is true just because it can't be proven false. I might as well ask you for an example of a modern instance of a first world country abandoning all social safety nets for tens of millions of poor, sick, and disabled and having all those millions sufficiently cared for by the charity of others. A betting man would put all his money every time on charity not being remotely close to being able to assume that burden.
2012-09-18 12:35:58 AM
2 votes:

o5iiawah: mainstreet62: You're keeping closer to 75% of your paycheck, probably more. Don't be obtuse.

Social security takes 15% right off the top, so I'm not quite sure where 75 comes in.

between contributions to SS, medicare, federal income, state income and the pittance levied by my county, I'm hovering around 40. This is of course before the pre-tax income that I try to invest which sees gains eaten at 15%. Changes to the healthcare law will kibosh my annual increase which of course doesn't offset normal inflation and cost of living adjustments as well. If I'm paying more for basic services thanks to government, this is indirect taxation. Gas went up $.20 in my neighborhood this week which I'm sure had nothing to do with another round of QE. That is taxation.

Of course, this is before I even buy anything.

I get it. We need taxes. I'm happy to pay them, I'm just curious as to how much is fair, how much I should be paying and what more I should be doing for other people?


How are you paying 15% to SS when the SS tax rate is currently 4.2%? Even the self-employed payroll tax rate including SS and medicare is only 13.3%.

Not including pretax 401(k) contributions, my total withholding including payroll and income tax is about 21%, and that's with a base pay of a little over 80k a year, with only 2 allowances as a single filer with no dependents. I live in Texas, so I don't have a state income tax, but you say you're in PA, with a state income tax around 3%. That would only put me up to around 25% being withheld from my paycheck.

I'd have to make somewhere in the neighborhood of 500k a year to even get close to a 40% withholding, and that doesn't even take into account that the SS withholding maxes out at about 110k. If you're married, have kids, or have a mortgage, your total rate would be much lower.
2012-09-18 12:34:47 AM
2 votes:

Nabb1: Providing for those who cannot provide for themselves is charity, and there's nothing wrong with helping people. But no one has a right to demand the government provide them anything.


Sure we do. As a democracy, we are the government. If we collectively decide that the government should hand out balloons every Wednesday then that is what we have decided the government's purpose is. It's the way Democracy works. I don't care what the first government looked like 235 some years ago. Since then we, as a people, have decided that government should have the role of holding out a safety net for the less fortunate among us. And frankly I think that Jefferson and Monroe and Hamilton would all be happy to see that the people's right to determine the form and shape of their government still exists, rather than bemoan the role that government plays in our lives.
2012-09-18 12:29:16 AM
2 votes:

Genevieve Marie: His uncomfortable smirk while he walked out on the questions was hilarious. God, he's such an asshole. He's such an asshole it's hard to narrow down a top 20 list of "Moments where Mitt Romney reveals that He's a Clueless Douchebag" but if such a list were made, his little comment about how he wishes he was Latino should go on there.

It takes epic levels of Not Getting It for him to assume that if he'd been born as part of a racial minority that he'd still be the incredibly wealthy son of a governor who went to the best prep schools and universities in the country- or that he'd be where he is now if it wasn't for that.


I'd say with few exceptions there hasn't been more than a few spans greater than a week or two since the GOP Primary wraped up where I haven't said, "I just can't farking believe (the latest comment/incident) by Romney."

It's to the point I'm so worn out by the man it takes something completely off the rails like this or his remarks after (during!) the embassy attacks to get me into a thread about this jagoff. If I don't pace myself I'll be incapable of following the election through to the conclusion. The problem is even with those standards he's STILL demanding too much of my time. I may literally have to restrict myself to commenting on actions by Romney where he personally sets someone on fire.

Maybe that's his strategy. Just wear us all the fark out to the point we tune out and actually miss election day.
2012-09-18 12:22:13 AM
2 votes:

Shrugging Atlas: mrshowrules: I have to go to bed soon. I thought the video was was epic failure but the press conference video actually is beyond that if possible

I completely agree. This press conference was just farking painful. The guy's such a off-the-charts dick he can't even see the problem with his comments, much less make a genuine apology for them or even be bothered to issue "Covered my ass" nopology. As amazing as it is to believe he'd been better off just saying nothing at all, at least tonight. Instead the morning news is going to run the audio from the fund raiser AND excerpts of him being a dick at this presser as well.

And you just farking KNOW when this was over tonight he turned to one of his aides and said, "Nailed it."



His uncomfortable smirk while he walked out on the questions was hilarious. God, he's such an asshole. He's such an asshole it's hard to narrow down a top 20 list of "Moments where Mitt Romney reveals that He's a Clueless Douchebag" but if such a list were made, his little comment about how he wishes he was Latino should go on there.
 
It takes epic levels of Not Getting It for him to assume that if he'd been born as part of a racial minority that he'd still be the incredibly wealthy son of a governor who went to the best prep schools and universities in the country- or that he'd be where he is now if it wasn't for that.
2012-09-18 12:18:12 AM
2 votes:

spongeboob: He is upset because some people don't pay income taxes, I think his point is if these free loaders paid their share he would have more money in his pocket.


Of course we don't even know if HE pays farking taxes every year, so maybe this is all just a complex exercise in self-loathing.
2012-09-18 12:11:10 AM
2 votes:

o5iiawah: If I have an obligation to provide for this country in the form of taxes, then Everyone has that obligation.


Everyone does have that obligation. It's the millionaires and billionaires that are skipping out on the bill. The poor aren't taxed because they have no money to tax. You can become poor if you want. You can leave it you want. What you can't do is get blood from a stone, or money from someone without it.
2012-09-17 11:45:42 PM
2 votes:

o5iiawah: In the absence of a crime, When did one person incur a debt to take care of another?


2.bp.blogspot.com

Moochers. They need to bootstrap themselves
2012-09-17 11:44:15 PM
2 votes:

o5iiawah: mainstreet62: No one said we were, asshole. I work, I pay taxes (income, property, etc..), and I have compassion for others who are less fortunate, and don't mind if my tax dollars help them. What's YOUR excuse for being a sub-human piece of shiat?

As do I, but I dont sit here with a straight face and think that some people exist solely to provide.

I pay taxes and obey the laws and I'm tired of being called a greedy dick because I'd like to keep half of my paycheck


You're keeping closer to 75% of your paycheck, probably more. Don't be obtuse.

Taxes are fundamental to society, they provide basic services that we all need. You know this. Unfortunately, you think "freeloaders" are out to get you. This is simply not true. You really need to get over that, you and about 25% of this population of the United States.

Of course, paying as little in taxes is something that is in everyone's interests, but only if society has it's safety nets intact.
2012-09-17 11:29:35 PM
2 votes:
Let's raise the minimum wage to $20/hr. Those suckers will be paying tax in no time!

(The 47% is a cherry-picked number of single filers from 2009, the worst recession year, so it's filled with underemployed folks and single parents, whose childcare credits wipe out federal income tax. The normal number is in the 30s somewhere, I've read numbers ranging form 33-39.--So really it's mostly old people and actual poor working people. The lucky duckies!)
2012-09-17 11:29:14 PM
2 votes:

InmanRoshi: This opens up a whole lot of fair game questions ranging to his tax returns


Can't be overstated enough.
2012-09-17 11:26:46 PM
2 votes:

A. Snatchfold: CorporatePerson: Grungehamster: The right wing has circled the wagons. It won't have a ripple effect just because who is going to find out about it in a way that isn't spun as "he was just talking about how the moochers are already in Obama's camp, as we already know" and gloss over him saying they are 47% of the electorate, no matter how obviously false that argument is?

No way this is gonna seriously impact the race. I don't believe there's a single Republican out there who believes they are part of that 47%. Part of voting Republican means you already see yourself as smarter and better than most of the country anyways.

Perhaps not, but maybe the independents will be swayed.


Presidential candidates don't call emergency 10 EST press conferences unless they're trying to put out a huge public relations grass fire out of control. Mitt has just unleashed a genie that he'll never get back in the bottle. This opens up a whole lot of fair game questions ranging to his tax returns to his ability to relate to working class that he doesn't want to spend the last 6 weeks of the campaign clarifying.
2012-09-17 11:17:23 PM
2 votes:
I kinda do wish the extreme right, Social Darwinian, theocratic types could carve just one state off of the Union to completely run as their own for about 25 to 30 years. Mass migration of right wing ideological types there so as to tip the balance just enough in the remaining United States to be more progressive. I would like to see some pure, "fark you, I got mine", anti-science, no one deserves health care, our laws should be based on the Bible (ignoring all that love thy neighbor and help the poor bullshiat), anti-gay, creationist educational system government run for over a generation. Then at the end of the 25 or 30 years let that one independent country, former state, vote on whether or not to rejoin the rest of the union and the rest of the nation vote on whether it should be able to rejoin (IF it decides to come crawling back to the First World).

I'm guessing by the end of that 25 to 30 years it would look something pretty damn close to a theocratic, developing world hellhole. Oh, like any good hellhole, there would be a very elite class of super rich. And they would be pissing all over, er, I mean, trickling down all over, the rest (vast majority) of that fun little nation. Maybe it would be enough to end this nonsense once and for all, and we could rejoin the rest of the developed democracies in sanity.
2012-09-17 11:15:42 PM
2 votes:
why don't poor people just sell their inherited stock options and pay 13% tax on it because it is "carried interest"?
2012-09-17 11:11:55 PM
2 votes:
David Weigel rightly pointed out that the narrative of "the 47% who don't pay income taxes is Obama's base!!!" doesn't really make sense given that most of the people who don't pay income taxes are retirees, and old people tend to vote Republican.
2012-09-17 10:45:23 PM
2 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: The best thing Romney could do for his party right now is schedule foreign trips for the next 6 weeks.



Except that the last time he took a foreign trip, he pissed off ever single person in the UK. Dude could ship himself to Mars, and still have to do damage control after insulting the rocks.
2012-09-17 10:31:47 PM
2 votes:
Don't forget that we still have to vote.
2012-09-17 10:29:51 PM
2 votes:

elchip: I saw a survey a few weeks back showing that something along the lines of 95% of Americans would rather work than be on the dole. But I can't find it anywhere. Can anyone else?


Of course people would rather earn a paycheck. A DECENT paycheck. What disturbs me is WHY we as a society would need to shame and torment those who aren't able to earn a living and NEED some assistance in order to survive. Aren't their lives already hard enough without having to suffer through a gauntlet of jerks looking down their noses at them as if they were subhuman scum unworthy of life? I find that to be a pretty dickish way of treating people down on their luck.
2012-09-17 10:09:47 PM
2 votes:
Has anyone mentioned that the poorest states in the country are in the red south? And those red states are the most dependent on federal tax dollars funded by the wealthy blue states? Because someone should really mention that.
2012-09-17 10:06:20 PM
2 votes:
This just reinforces my belief that the Republicans are not the pro-life party but the anti-abortion party. Once you're out of your mother's womb and breathing on your own, screw you. But hey, at least we forced your mom to give birth to you even though she can't afford to support you. You don't get food at school because we cut funding to school lunch programs? And we hate Obamacare even though it provides you with health care despite the fact that you are a child who, through no fault of your own, has a pre-existing condition? And you've decided you want to go to college so you can get a real job and won't be poor all your life but can't afford it because we cut funding for tuition loans? Oh well.
2012-09-17 10:05:43 PM
2 votes:
I'm on disability. I have been on disability all of my life. Yeah, the government provides for me, including foodstamps and medical assistance.

Do I like it?

Hell. No. It Sucks.

Fark you, Romney. Fark you with Ryan's hardbound copy of Atlas Shrugged.
2012-09-17 10:05:10 PM
2 votes:

quatchi: Simply by not being Obama the markets will rise in anticipation of Mitt's brilliance or something.



It's especially amusing since the Dow has doubled since Obama took office.
2012-09-17 09:54:03 PM
2 votes:

TV's Vinnie: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 425x618]


I grew up around a lot of farktard Derpers who liked to go on and on about how pretty soon there will be no incentive to acquire wealth. They didn't seem to grasp that wealth is a farking incentive, you don't need to stack incentive on top of it.
2012-09-17 09:53:26 PM
2 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Reminds me of that one farker on disability that derides anyone else who uses welfare.


Or the Republican actor who went on national television and said - without a trace of irony - "I was on welfare and food stamps and nobody helped me". I don't understand them and lord willing I never will.
2012-09-17 09:41:38 PM
2 votes:

Cletus C.: Corvus: Cletus C.: The things he said, I thought they were facts. Why are Democrats suddenly so afraid of facts?

That people bankrupt because they have medical bills because they are dying of cancer we should tax them more and throw them on the street? You agree with that?

Are you the same person who created the ad where Romney killed the laid off worker's wife?


Evasion noted.
2012-09-17 09:33:27 PM
2 votes:

ferretman: Real small businesses that do not pay minimum wage but actual salaries will be effected. A company needs to make ~$100K per employee that makes ~$50K + benefits. Increasing their taxes do not allow these small business grow.


If a company has $100,000 in revenue, and pays $80,000 in salary, they're taxable income is $20,000, not the full $100,000 in revenue.
2012-09-17 09:32:45 PM
2 votes:
This is what Republicans actually believe. And that is yet another reason so many people despise Republicans.
2012-09-17 09:31:53 PM
2 votes:

ferretman: Corvus: What entitled "people" who pay no income tax may look like:

[ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com image 452x693]

And whose fault is that? It's Congresses and the Presidents. President Obama has not even mentioned these multi-million/billion corporations. Just wants to raise taxes on those making $150,000.00+ (combined). Real small businesses that do not pay minimum wage but actual salaries will be effected. A company needs to make ~$100K per employee that makes ~$50K + benefits. Increasing their taxes do not allow these small business grow.


How come the last time we cut taxes on people making $250,000+ we had the slowest economic growth in decades?

And why should I expect this time to be different?
2012-09-17 09:27:27 PM
2 votes:

Kome: skullkrusher: Bloody William: Nabb1: "A government that has the power to give you something has the power to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson. If you can provide yourself with the necessities in life, you have no right to demand others do so for you.

"The poor who have neither property, friends, nor strength to
labor, are boarded in the houses of good farmers, to whom a
stipulated sum is annually paid. To those who are able to help
themselves a little, or have friends from whom they derive some
succor, inadequate however to their full maintenance,
supplementary aids are given which enable them to live
comfortably in their own houses, or in the houses of their
friends."

-Thomas Jefferson. Notes on Virginia, 1782.

you dropped something

"Vagabonds without visible property or vocation, are placed in work houses, where they are well clothed, fed, lodged, and made to labor."

the end of your quote

So they are provided clothing, food, housing, AND a job? Awesome! Where do we sign up?


But don't answer yet! You may qualify for our fabulous Plantation program! With warmer weather and a select group of participants, this could be your work house dream come true! Send a likeness of yourself to...
2012-09-17 09:23:44 PM
2 votes:
What about the people who work full-time yet still qualify for assistance like food stamps and/or Medicade because their pay is so low they qualify? Are they lazy and wanting a handout? Or are they hard working Americans trying to survive? Is this the fault of President Obama or the "job creators" who have record cash reserves yet their workers income remains stagnant because the tax cuts failed to trickle down further than their own bonuses, Swiss bank accounts, and tax shelters inthe Cayman Islands?

I do not agree that the Republican economic plan is the solution. To take public sector employees and lower their wages to that of private sector employees, who make so little they qualify for public assistance, is not a solution to cutting "government waste". Taking away that assistance and then raising their taxes in order to pay for a millionaire tax cut isn't a good way to reduce the number of people on public assistance. Making the working class desperate enough they will work for 3rd world wages is not an acceptable way to create jobs.
2012-09-17 09:23:00 PM
2 votes:

RyogaM: He wasn't claiming 47% of Obama voters think of themselves as victims. He was saying 96% of Obama voters think of themselves as victims. If Obama said that 96% of Republicans were racists or 96% clung to guns and religion, or 96% wanted to see people starve, die from treatable health disease or died outside in the, well, you'd have yourself a shiatstorm. Clearly, the above only applies to 90% of Republicans.

jk


It's worse than that, though. Romney's premise wasn't just "Obama voters." It was "the 47% of voters who don't pay taxes," who he assumes will vote for Obama. Romney truly believes that 47% of the electorate are worthless pieces of shiat living high off the government hog, and that it's his job to stop them.
2012-09-17 09:22:19 PM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: I don't know why making people work for their public support is mean. In fact, I think it's a wonderful idea, if possible.


Some sort of "earned income tax credit" or "work for welfare" system...

Wait. That's exactly what we have.
2012-09-17 09:10:08 PM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: Bloody William: Nabb1: "A government that has the power to give you something has the power to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson. If you can provide yourself with the necessities in life, you have no right to demand others do so for you.

"The poor who have neither property, friends, nor strength to
labor, are boarded in the houses of good farmers, to whom a
stipulated sum is annually paid. To those who are able to help
themselves a little, or have friends from whom they derive some
succor, inadequate however to their full maintenance,
supplementary aids are given which enable them to live
comfortably in their own houses, or in the houses of their
friends."

-Thomas Jefferson. Notes on Virginia, 1782.

you dropped something

"Vagabonds without visible property or vocation, are placed in work houses, where they are well clothed, fed, lodged, and made to labor."

the end of your quote


So they are provided clothing, food, housing, AND a job? Awesome! Where do we sign up?
2012-09-17 08:53:32 PM
2 votes:
Dear rich people and corporations: Romney wasn't talking about you when he ripped people who don't pay taxes and who get government handouts. Please don't cancel your checks to our campaign. -- The Romneys
2012-09-17 08:41:52 PM
2 votes:
The American dream is a good job, a nice home, and a growing savings account.

The Repugnantcan dream is standing atop one of the ramparts of your mansion-fortress and beating off while watching the rest of society starve to death outside.

they can't be happy unless you suffer
2012-09-17 08:37:04 PM
2 votes:
Born on third, thinks he hit a triple.
2012-09-17 08:36:22 PM
2 votes:
How about all the big corporations, who are huge donors to lobbyists and conservative candidate campaigns, who are dependent on the government for massive tax breaks (hey Mitt, GE doesn't pay taxes either), subsidized payments, and generous government contracts for goods and services?
2012-09-17 08:32:28 PM
2 votes:

Gulper Eel: The number could be well higher than 47% given the massive deficits we run (and would run even if the defense budget was zero), but that would prove awkward for Mitt as well as Obama.

If you want to simply compare what we pay in federal taxes to what we get back in federal transfers alone, the bottom three quintiles come out ahead.

If you want to compare what we pay in taxes to all the spending, what P.J. O'Rourke found 20 years ago in "Parliament of Whores" is going to be even truer now considering how far in hock we are...

...that 95% of us are moochers.


Canada had debt problems in the 90s. We even had our credit downgraded to AAA to AA. We since recovered our credit rating and we have a balance budget predicted for 2016 and a 7.1% unemployment rate. You know how we did it? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't by cutting spending or social benefits.
2012-09-17 08:31:45 PM
2 votes:

Lawnchair: GAT_00: Is this where we pretend 'people who live off the government' only means minorities on food stamps and doesn't include the 40 million people on Social Security and Medicare, many of whom survive solely on those programs and vote Republican, or the defense contractors and the thousands who work for them who wouldn't have jobs without massive government funding, who also vote Republican?

This is the big, big question.

If Obama's people can convince Mr. and Mrs. AARP that he's very much talking about them (and there's no way to get anywhere near that 47% number without talking very clearly about them), then the election should be a bloodbath. On the other hand, though, there's no demographic whose allegiances are more well-cemented (not entirely one way or the other, but individually cemented) than the over-65 voters.


I have only my dad to offer up as an example here, but quite an example he is: at 72, a lifelong Republican fiscal conservative/social moderate, he just switched from R to Independent. And yes, as much as it pains him to admit it, he's voting for the Democrat for the first time in his life.

I don't think he's the only one.
2012-09-17 08:27:31 PM
2 votes:

spongeboob: shower_in_my_socks: Oh, and Romney doesn't believe he was born into privlege:

"I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."

In 1994 I first heard about Mitt Romney, I was at an AMC car show and George Romney was speaking and he gave his little speech that included how his son was running for office and that we should give money to his campaign to improve America. Funny that for such a selfmade man he needed help from his dad to start and finance his political career.



Also a blatant LIE in light of the well-publicized anecdote from Ann about how they got through their early married live by selling of stock that Mitt's father bought for him. That only counts as "no inheritance" in the strictest definition of the term, as George was still alive at the time.
2012-09-17 08:27:17 PM
2 votes:

Nabb1: vartian: Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?

No. I believe peopled are entitled to those things. It is farking ludicrous to even entertain the thought that 47% of the country agrees with me.

No, they aren't. You're not entitled to anything else from anyone else. Providing for those who cannot provide for themselves is charity, and there's nothing wrong with helping people. But no one has a right to demand the government provide them anything. "A government that has the power to give you something has the power to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson. If you can provide yourself with the necessities in life, you have no right to demand others do so for you.


You are quite wrong. You are entitled to at least a few things from EVERYONE:
1. To be left alone by them to live your life as you choose
2. To be treated by them as they would treat anyone else, and as they would like to be treated.

Those aren't material things, of course, which is what you were talking about.

I also think you mis-understand the nature of safety nets. Do you think the elderly got together and demanded Social Security? Do you thing the poor got together and demanded welfare? That's not how it worked. The people of the country saw great wrongs -- elderly people who had worked all their lives being swindled out of their savings and falling into abysmal poverty. Children whose only mistake was to be born into the wrong family not having any chance to live up to their potential. People dying of easily treatable conditions because they had no access to medical care. Those things prompted people to try to do something about it on a large scale, and felt that the government was the best last line of defense.

Of course, once a government program is created to help people, it's absolutely reasonable that the people who qualify for it demand that they get it when they need it. Is there something wrong with that? Should they just sit quietly and hope that the someone notices they need help?
2012-09-17 08:18:35 PM
2 votes:

Zoophagous: Funny thing is the vast majority of people I know who are voting Romney are actually dependent on the government.

/the olds
//well older than me


My (future) in-laws. Retired military with some niiiice federal benefits. Plus their daughter and her kids are on welfare and all that since she can't hold down a job (I certainly don't begrudge her kids getting benefits, not their fault their mom's an idiot). All of them are hardcore Teabaggin' birthers. Their son and I are quietly liberal since they'd probably disown us if they knew how we really feel. Yet if all government "entitlements" suddenly went away, they're the ones who'd be up shiat creek while we'd be doing just fine.
2012-09-17 08:13:42 PM
2 votes:

peasandcarrots: I want to ask DIA what it would take for me to be entitled to food, shelter, and safety. At what point do you think I've put in enough of a stake in society for that to be my due? Does it involve a tax bracket, or a certain number of hours worked, or a level of commitment to a conservative cause? At what point am I actually entitled to my entitlements?


You're talking to a guy who thinks that active duty military aren't entitled to food, shelter, or medical care.
2012-09-17 08:13:36 PM
2 votes:

shower_in_my_socks: Oh, and Romney doesn't believe he was born into privlege:

"I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."


Right he was GIFTED stock and house but he didn't "inherit" it. So that makes it ok.
2012-09-17 08:12:07 PM
2 votes:
This was probably the worst possible headline for something like this. I wish there were a more real headline and we'd have a massive thread where more people can farking watch this or at least read the transcript of this video. It's absolutely disgusting, sickening shiat.
2012-09-17 08:10:51 PM
2 votes:
One of the problems with Mitt is that he really believes that he pulled himself up by the bootstraps and wouldn't it be great if we returned America to those days. He's the type of guy who will deny benefits to the sick, the poor, the disabled--all as part of some grand moralistic social experiment that could only appeal to the casual rich.
2012-09-17 08:08:13 PM
2 votes:

AnEvilGuest: It's one thing for propaganda parrots to squawk this grotesque horseshiat about how everyone struggling to get by are goddamn parasites, but to have an actual candidate call 47% of americans parasites is obscene.

That someone could be that viciously, smugly, arrogantly oblivious to the struggles of people who work at the kind of shiate jobs that I thank god I don't have to work at, disgusts me.

If you think the problem with America is minimum wage earners not paying enough income tax to go with their payroll, sales etc taxes, while Mitt Romney pays too much income tax than you disgust me as well.


THIS THIS THIS.

If I was Obama admin I would be bringing out cancer victims, retirees, US vets and say screw you Romney we are going to protect these people and we are not victims!
2012-09-17 08:06:46 PM
2 votes:
"All right -- there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

I am just amazed by this statement.

I'm an Obama supporter, but it's news to me that I believe I'm a victim and that the government must care for me.

Go fark yourself, you arrogant piece of shiat.
2012-09-17 08:05:38 PM
2 votes:
So nearly half of all Americans rely on the government and won't take responsibility for their lives? And people only vote for Obama because they want free handouts?And we're still spreading the meme that nearly half the country doesn't pay income taxes?

What the farking fark, republicans?
2012-09-17 08:03:29 PM
2 votes:

peasandcarrots: I want to ask DIA what it would take for me to be entitled to food, shelter, and safety. At what point do you think I've put in enough of a stake in society for that to be my due? Does it involve a tax bracket, or a certain number of hours worked, or a level of commitment to a conservative cause? At what point am I actually entitled to my entitlements?


The answer is simple: Money.
That is what they value above all else. Greed is good. Money is moral.
2012-09-17 08:02:21 PM
2 votes:

RexTalionis: Look , I don't like defending Romney, but I don't really see the big deal about this. He's a candidate running an election with an extremely polarised populace. Of course he's going to denigrate the voters of the other side.

You really think that the Obama campaign doesn't think that a good portion of Romney's base is a bunch of racist whackjobs, either?


The Obama campaign has never pulled down its pants and taken a massive, directly-targeted shiat all over 47% percent of voters, which Romney explicitly mentioned by name.
2012-09-17 08:01:42 PM
2 votes:
With Romney's numbers stagnant and the election only 7 weeks away, this is the last thing he needed. And he knows it.
2012-09-17 07:57:07 PM
2 votes:

beta_plus: Corvus: What entitled "people" who pay no income tax may look like:

[ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com image 452x693]

Taxing corporations does not work. They do one of 3 things:
1) raise prices
2) cut dividends
3) fire workers


They will always pass the cost onto someone else.
This is not because they are evil. They are at a different point on the chain of production and consumption.

Try taking some basic non-Keynesian Macro Economics so you don't sound like an idiot.


Speaking of sounding like an idiot, the assertion that you made in the first part of your statement is micro economics.

Also if you took an accredited course in micro economics you would know that taxes are not fully passed on to the customer and typically shared between producer and consumer. The other two of your absolutes are not. Corporate taxes are do not effect hiring as employees are an expense and drive down profits therefore owed taxes. If you fire some one because of increased taxes you increase your taxable earnings. that is just poor management.
2012-09-17 07:55:36 PM
2 votes:

RexTalionis: GhostFish: RexTalionis: Look, I don't like defending Romney, but I don't really see the big deal about this. He's a candidate running an election with an extremely polarised populace. Of course he's going to denigrate the voters of the other side.

You really think that the Obama campaign doesn't think that a good portion of Romney's base is a bunch of racist whackjobs, either?

This would be like Obama coming out and saying that everyone voting against him is a racist whackjob.

Okay, Obama knows better than saying that, even in private. But you can't tell me that a good number of liberals aren't thinking that exact thought.


Probably. Idiots abound, especially in political parties. But when the candidate starts openly indulging in the mindless self-delusions of his extremist supporters then you have a serious problem.
2012-09-17 07:51:26 PM
2 votes:

RexTalionis: Look, I don't like defending Romney, but I don't really see the big deal about this. He's a candidate running an election with an extremely polarised populace. Of course he's going to denigrate the voters of the other side.

You really think that the Obama campaign doesn't think that a good portion of Romney's base is a bunch of racist whackjobs, either?


This would be like Obama coming out and saying that everyone voting against him is a racist whackjob.
2012-09-17 07:47:55 PM
2 votes:
"All right -- there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

Just a note, this part makes it very clear that Romney is not talking about the safety net.
He is saying that the 47% consistently believe that they are victims that the government must support.

That is the issue.
2012-09-17 07:46:08 PM
2 votes:

Lost Thought 00: So, if Romney doesn't consider access to food and shelter a basic human right, what exactly do all those charities he claims to donate to actually provide?


Blocking gay marriage, and spreading their religion around the world. That's what his church does which he likes to call "charity".
2012-09-17 07:44:53 PM
2 votes:
So, if Romney doesn't consider access to food and shelter a basic human right, what exactly do all those charities he claims to donate to actually provide?
2012-09-17 07:42:24 PM
2 votes:

beta_plus: They will always pass the cost onto someone else.
This is not because they are evil. They are at a different point on the chain of production and consumption.


Fine then why are you against it then? If they just pass it on to consumers then it's no problem to tax them because it would not hurt their profits at all would it?
2012-09-17 07:36:03 PM
2 votes:

ravenlore: Bloody William: Fundamental ideological differences: Liberals fear something bad will happen to someone who doesn't deserve it. Conservatives fear something good will happen to someone who doesn't deserve it.

I'm stealing this. Will credit.


"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear." - William E. Gladstone
2012-09-17 07:35:36 PM
2 votes:

Cletus C.: The things he said, I thought they were facts. Why are Democrats suddenly so afraid of facts?


That people bankrupt because they have medical bills because they are dying of cancer we should tax them more and throw them on the street? You agree with that?
2012-09-17 07:34:41 PM
2 votes:

beta_plus: Don't worry, we'll outlaw blasphemy against islam and all of those victims will finally see justice done.


OMG Romney did something dumb again. THREAD SHIAT TIME!!!
2012-09-17 06:44:03 PM
2 votes:

WTF Indeed: This is not a big deal. Funny, but not a big deal. The real story is that Romney was known to give such a stupid stump speech at fundraisers and the Obama campaign was able to get someone into one to record it. Which means there are more than likely more stories like this to come out.


Did you watch all the segments? He talks about using consultants who worked in various other countries and basically how the whole election is just a game. He talks about not wanting to use his wife to often because the public would get tired of her. As if he wasn't already having problems with the women's vote. He joked about the Mexican vote. Talked about being born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
2012-09-17 06:41:02 PM
2 votes:

ariseatex: mrshowrules: ariseatex: Dusk-You-n-Me: Mark it: this video is the final stake through the heart of the Romney campaign. Election now over.- Josh Barro (@jbarro) September 17, 2012

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
90% of "game-changing" gaffes are less important in retrospect than they seem in the moment.

Disagrees:

[news.bbc.co.uk image 300x300]

[www.solidprinciples.com image 400x319]

I remember watching the Dean Scream live. At the time I thought it was prime Daily Show fodder, but nothing too bad. It wasn't clear how bad it was until later.


Perhaps the 90% of things that are called "game-changing" gaffes are probably mislabeled. A true game changing gaffe is unrecoverable. I think this video is exactly that although he was losing anyways.
2012-09-17 06:20:28 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Oh how I wish...I really really do. And the fact that you don't believe me changes nothing.


The fact you don't post specifics (are you Romney) means there's no reason to take anything away from what you said, whether it's true or not.
2012-09-17 06:11:32 PM
2 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Mark it: this video is the final stake through the heart of the Romney campaign. Election now over.- Josh Barro (@jbarro) September 17, 2012


Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
90% of "game-changing" gaffes are less important in retrospect than they seem in the moment.
2012-09-17 05:33:28 PM
2 votes:

impaler: Dancin_In_Anson: [csb]

Local lady was offered a promotion within her place of employment. This promotion brought with it supervisory duties, more responsibilities, opportunities for further advancement, FREE training to further these opportunities and most importantly a substantial raise. Exactly the way it's supposed to work right? She turned it down because she would lose her benefits...and not the ones she already has with her employer. THAT is some farked up shiat right there and is what takes away from those that really NEED it.
[/csb]

And I turned down a $1000/year higher salary because it would raise my taxes!!!!

/We are playing "things idiots pretend happen, but don't," right?


I had a secretary that had four kids and her ex was a deadbeat dad and she turned down a raise because the increase in her salary would bump her kids of LACHIP (health coverage for children of low-income families) and she couldn't afford to put them all on our plan. I didn't blamer her, frankly.

/CSB
2012-09-17 05:01:52 PM
2 votes:

Nabb1: I don't think our flood protection is an entitlement. Considering that the city itself is a major port and is the largest confluence of brown water, blue water and rail shipping in North America, it is an important city to the nation. Protecting it is a good idea, but not an entitlement. Same with cleaning up BP's mess, which, BTW, BP should be footing in its entirety. It's their responsibility to pay for the damage they caused, but I don't think it's something we are "entitled to" from the government. Again, is it a good idea to restore damages wetlands from the oil spill? Of course. Is it an entitlement? No, it is not.


Why can't your state pay for it? Why can't your city? Why do you need my money?

It may be smart, but smart doesn't mean my responsibility.
2012-09-17 04:41:24 PM
2 votes:
5% of Farkers are Social Darwinists.
2012-09-17 04:38:22 PM
2 votes:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "All right -- there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

I am part of the 47% and I am not dependent on the government for anything besides roads, public schools, fire department, police etc.

I don't need housing, food or health care provided from the government.

Does Romney truly believe that EVERYONE who votes for Obama is on the dole?
2012-09-17 04:36:50 PM
2 votes:

mrshowrules: 47% might want access to affordable health care insurance and employment. The number of people as a percentage that want a free ride, would in theory be at least less than the unemployment rate or do you assume all people who can't find work are lazy?


47% is equal to the percentage of people that didn't pay federal INCOME taxes in 2009 (but still paid federal FICA and excise taxes).

Note: When looking at "taxes as percentage of income", remember Romney's income tax is 13%
growlersoftware.com
2012-09-17 04:31:16 PM
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Bloody William: It assumes that those three things are readily available

They are.


Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?

It assumes that those three things are readily available, with no chance of exception or failure, to anyone who wants it. There's a reason we have safety nets, and it's not just because it's the human, civilized thing to have.


YOU COULDN'T EVEN QUOTE THE FULL SENTENCE AND THE CONTEXT THEREIN.
2012-09-17 04:24:33 PM
2 votes:

Aarontology: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Aarontology: "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Yeah, those soldiers and veterans need to shut the f*ck up.

And old people and children.

It's the Republican Christian thing to do, after all.


And lo Jesus took one loaf of bread and made everyone bootstraps.
2012-09-17 04:15:13 PM
2 votes:
they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?
2012-09-17 04:12:09 PM
2 votes:
i110.photobucket.com
Republicans are often assholes
2012-09-18 03:59:52 PM
1 votes:
So, it's not ok if poor folks don't pay income tax, but it's fine and dandy to hide millions of dollars in offshore accounts to circumvent taxes?

i628.photobucket.com
2012-09-18 12:09:20 PM
1 votes:

Bucky Katt: A rare candid statement from Romney. He truly despises most Americans. A smug, arrogant elitist.


This is one of the most fascinating things about the republican party... they spent the bulk of their 2008 campaign trying to convince america that a minority male from Chicago from a broken home, raised by his grandparents and earning his way through college and law school on scholarships is some sort of arugula and fancy mustard eating out of touch elitist... and then purposely go out and nominate someone who is an actual real life textbook 100% white guy silver spoon millionaire out of touch elitist without batting an eye.

WTF?
2012-09-18 11:46:07 AM
1 votes:

G.I.R.B.: Just had an interesting convo with one of my clients this morning. He's a retired COO, and a died-in-the-wool conservative/life-long Republican.

His comment?

"Romney just stepped on his crank with golf-shoes...ya know what? If Clinton could run again I'd vote for him in a heartbeat!"


Then he should be voting Obama.

Did you mention how closely Obama and Clinton's policy positions align? And with Obama you don't have to deal with embarrassing bimbo eruptions.
2012-09-18 11:18:04 AM
1 votes:
Im not convinced that Rmoney actually wants to be president. I think he might be trying to throw the match.
2012-09-18 09:58:02 AM
1 votes:

Nabb1: If you can provide yourself with the necessities in life, you have no right to demand others do so for you.


I think you have every right to demand it. First amendment style. The government is under no such obligation to provide much of anything except the spending and appropriations agreed to in the last congress. So until such a time as congress decides to actually... you know... cut off these "47%" leachers...

Yes. You do have a right to demand that the programs your taxes pay for are available to you when you need them. Because we voted for people to represent us, and a while ago they decided this was smart. And we have yet to vote for people to change this. Because for all our bravado about bootstraps, everyone knows deep down that they're a broken leg and a car accident away from losing their farking house.

At the other end, you have every right to demand that the government stop fulfilling these obligations. However, that's a little more fruitless, really. I suggest you vote for people who will *snirk*, cut off -pffft- entitlements. See how that works out for you. Watch as people pander mercilessly to your misguided sense of social justice and then proceed to do what everyone before them does. Punt. And biatch about how it's the democrats' fault.
2012-09-18 09:52:20 AM
1 votes:

Aarontology: For the record though, I completely support Federal involvement in recovery from hurricanes and oil spills, and I think it's appalling how quickly people forget about the Gulf.


We've still got farking BP oil washing up on the beaches in South Texas, after Isaac hit and stirred that shiat up.

Link
2012-09-18 08:39:17 AM
1 votes:

Omahawg: I hope some low-level romney social media consultant flunky monkey has to read these threads and then write a report, crying.


The Romney camp are suffering from major fatigue right now. They haven't even recovered from the Libya fiasco and now this. Many of his supporters are saying that he "hit a bump", "was inarticulate" and "misspoke". I would expect the rats to start jumping of the ship today.
2012-09-18 07:53:36 AM
1 votes:
Take a good, long look America. This is what a "job creator" looks like. What a farking asshole.
2012-09-18 07:16:22 AM
1 votes:
Perhaps he is troubled by the 25% of American children who are on food stamps. Many of whom have parents with jobs that don't pay enough to feed them properly.

Maybe he also has a problem with school lunch programs?
2012-09-18 06:53:13 AM
1 votes:

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: propasaurus: It's the absolute disgust and disdain he has for half the country he hopes to lead.

It's even worse than that. He thinks that even the most basic social safety net of food and housing are unreasonable demands from a parasitic underclass. Taken at face value, Mitt Romney believes that children should die of starvation rather than become self-styled victims, dependent on big government food assistance. These are his own terrifying words.


Couldn't have said it better.
2012-09-18 06:25:08 AM
1 votes:

quatchi: tony41454: Yeah, it's not like Obama's "they bitterly cling to their guns and religion" remark.

You sound bitter... and clingy.


I own guns AND am "religious" and I still wouldn't vote for that turd pile in an empty suit the GOP has flung at the country. DUCK!
2012-09-18 05:53:13 AM
1 votes:

Bloody William: vartian: Dancin_In_Anson: vartian: I believe peopled are entitled to those things.

At least you agree with the statement and are happy to admit it. Everyone else does but seems to be bothered by that fact.

I own my fuzzy liberalism, good sir :)

I freely admit it, too. Though I think DIA's trying to ignore my existence after I pointed out how utterly full of shiat he is both in quoting me and in presenting two potentially exclusive statements as one consistent one.



DIA is perpetually full of shiat.

Just another Texan retard.
2012-09-18 05:33:52 AM
1 votes:

thatguyoverthere70: Romney wasn't my choice, but up until today, I didn't actually think of him as a bad person. Now he seems like a complete and utter creep.Who knew the Occupy Wall Street crowd were right all this time?


I think it probably could be deduced from his line of work: if your job is to oversee the acquisition and breakup of existing companies, sacking most everyone and selling off the pieces you have to become pretty callous and not think about the details. I mean statistically you can guarantee every time you do it to a company of any size you are going to screw up a certain proportion of peoples lives - some will hit the booze when they can't get another job, hit the skids, and commit suicide. Others will get into financial trouble and get divorced leaving kids fatherless and more likely to get into crime. Yet more will get ill at the wrong time and die from something curable if they could have had proper treatment rather than just turn up in an ER too late to do anything about it.

So you can see why you would have to become inured against the plight of "little people" to do that job successfully. Obviously this isn't true of all wealthy people - lots of them spend their time building things and sharing the profit of doing so (Buffett, Gates, most venture capitalists, etc.), rather than creating and stripping corpses.
2012-09-18 05:05:26 AM
1 votes:

propasaurus: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Mitt Romney 'obviously' didn't mean war vets or those on social security, he meant 'those people'...

That's the only way to spin this where he can still save the votes from his base.


He already did spin it for the base. Like a poster said over at WaPo's blog (and others have said in this thread):

FauxReal wrote:
9/17/2012 10:17 PM MDT
He said something similar before at a fundraiser.

Remember the NAACP speech? After that he attended a fundraiser in Hamilton, Montana and brought up the booing at the NAACP, and told donors "if they (Obamacare supporters) want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy - more free stuff. But don't forget nothing is really free."

I guess this time he just added more details.


But what could you expect from the Bishop.
2012-09-18 04:29:51 AM
1 votes:
This reminds me of the thread about the kid who removed the clip from his glock and then demonstrated to his friends that it was "safe" to put the gun to his head and pull the trigger.
2012-09-18 03:25:49 AM
1 votes:

InmanRoshi: Who could have guessed this guy would have turned out to be such a sneering, plutocratic, douche-nozzle behind closed doors?

[www.washingtonpost.com image 510x310]


You'll have to point which one of the guys he is because they all have douche-nozzle written all over them.
2012-09-18 03:05:08 AM
1 votes:

Sabyen91:

Yeah, you could take it into account because it is part of your total compensation (something, as a Wisconsinite, I have learned the right has no idea about).


but he very specifically said he wants to keep at least half his *paycheck.* Doesn't sound inclusive of employer matching contribs . . . especially since they don't include that $ in your offer letter or raise total for salary/compensation. And his doing so would technically lower the actual rate by increasing the technical compensation amount (i.e., 50K salary + 7.65% employer on it = 53,825, and total 7,650 = only 14.2 of 53,825)
2012-09-18 02:20:20 AM
1 votes:

propasaurus: It's the absolute disgust and disdain he has for half the country he hopes to lead.


It's even worse than that. He thinks that even the most basic social safety net of food and housing are unreasonable demands from a parasitic underclass. Taken at face value, Mitt Romney believes that children should die of starvation rather than become self-styled victims, dependent on big government food assistance. These are his own terrifying words.
2012-09-18 02:19:52 AM
1 votes:

balloot: Everything else aside, it is utterly amazing that Rmoney apparently gets up in front of his donors and admits that 47% of the population won't vote for him. Quite the sell there Mittens! Where do I donate?


What is sillier is he admitted he is competing for voters that voted Obama in 2008 and then called Obama voters...losers.
2012-09-18 02:11:14 AM
1 votes:
Apparently he dislikes the elderly and war veterans.
2012-09-18 02:08:15 AM
1 votes:

thatguyoverthere70: It will barely hurt him with his base,


I see your point here, and I think you are right but there's something else at play here.

While his comments won't scare off his base...the fact this is the latest event to make him look more likely to lose in November than ever will start to scare them off.

People will stay home if the guy is a complete turnoff and is clearly going to lose on Election Day. Will that matter in Oklahoma? No. But it could make a HUGE difference in states with close downticket House or Senate races.

So again, while I see your point I think you're going to start seeing a critical mass with these comments where people who would otherwise vote for the Republican nominee just says, "Fark it."

My dad finally got there recently. He won't be voting for Romney, and is more than likely not going to vote at all because he's that discouraged, especially when his downticket Republican candidate is Todd Farking Akin. My dad stays home, and that's a straight ticket 'R' ballot kicked to the curb.
2012-09-18 01:48:24 AM
1 votes:

shower_in_my_socks: The best part about this is that Obama is nowhere near it. Mitt just went and did it to himself. Sure, Dems behind-the-scenes helped get it some media attention, but this wasn't the result of an attack made by Obama.

To put it into words that the GOP base can understand: This is like racing in NASCAR, and looking over and seeing your biggest competitor dump a can of gasoline on himself and light the entire pit row on fire while you head into the final lap.


As a racing fan and Obama supporter...my funny click goes to you, sir. I shall also be giving you a smart click, as well.
2012-09-18 01:45:01 AM
1 votes:

semiotix: Who's the Libertarian candidate? His chances at an electoral vote or three just got a lot better.


That'd be Gary Johnson, and I hope you're right. He's easily the second best choice on the ballot.
2012-09-18 01:35:27 AM
1 votes:
Well, bye, you lousy f*ckwad.
2012-09-18 01:27:21 AM
1 votes:
The best part about this is that Obama is nowhere near it. Mitt just went and did it to himself. Sure, Dems behind-the-scenes helped get it some media attention, but this wasn't the result of an attack made by Obama.

To put it into words that the GOP base can understand: This is like racing in NASCAR, and looking over and seeing your biggest competitor dump a can of gasoline on himself and light the entire pit row on fire while you head into the final lap.
2012-09-18 01:18:43 AM
1 votes:
The irony here (at least to me) is that this is the Romney Newt Gingrich warned us about 9 months ago.

I had mistakenly assumed that there was a good chance Romney could actually win, and was resigned to accept it. I figured a Romney admin wouldn't be that fundamentally different from Obama's; despite all the constant partisan bickering, the two parties are both beholden to the same big donors and couldn't care less about the rest of us for the most part. The Dems are slightly better at keeping the playing field less tilted
2012-09-18 01:15:05 AM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: Sabyen91: The explanation from Romney's camp right now is he was speaking "off the cuff". I am not sure how that is a defense, though.

Off the cuff remarks are usually more revealing of character than prepared and rehearsed statements. I'd say that we just got a glimpse of the real, elitist, hater of the needy that Romney really is.


Agreed. He was talking to his people. He was comfortable and telling it like it is (to him). This is Mitt Romney.
2012-09-18 01:11:51 AM
1 votes:

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Thing is, he didn't piss off his base though. He probably got them more excited to vote for him. There's this nebulous conservative ideology that there are hordes of minorities suckling the teat of big government at the expense of white taxpayers. Even if the white taxpayer in question doesn't pay federal income tax and is reliant on entitlement programs to survive. Conservative voters will see Romney's statements, nod their heads at a big government punishing the white man, then go cash their Social Security check without batting an eye. The guy on unemployment down at the bar isn't "one of those people" either. He's got circumstances that make it all right for him, but not for anyone else.


I have a feeling this election is about to take a really, really ugly turn for the nasty starting tomorrow. People just think they've seen race baiting and dog whistle blowing up to this point, but they haven't seen anything yet. Mitt can't walk this back, so he's got no choice but to tall all in and clarify that when he points to "them" he doesn't mean Granny Myrtle getting her social security check, he means THEM. THEM coming to get YOURS. And he's going to spend a few hundred million or so in ads to drive home this clarification.

McCain had some sense of dignity and a lifelong career as past, current and future Senator to keep him from completely going off to the dark side. Mitt has no ethics. He has no political career after this. He's used to slitting throats to get what he wants, and he's been reaching for this goal for the better part of 6 years.
2012-09-18 01:08:42 AM
1 votes:

Confabulat: It's still 2 months to the election almost. A lot can happen between now and then. American's can't remember past last Tuesday.


Pretty sure most Americans remember what happened last Tuesday.
2012-09-18 01:08:08 AM
1 votes:
It's interesting how few of the Romney derpers showed up in this thread to defend his honor. Normally criticism of the All High Leader brings the conservabots out in force. I guess this latest idiocy of Romney's is too much for even them to take.
2012-09-18 01:06:19 AM
1 votes:
It's still 2 months to the election almost. A lot can happen between now and then. American's can't remember past last Tuesday.
2012-09-18 12:43:39 AM
1 votes:
I honestly think Republicans just need to shut up and start planning for 2016. They are a disaster now.
2012-09-18 12:43:29 AM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: mainstreet62: You're keeping closer to 75% of your paycheck, probably more. Don't be obtuse.

Social security takes 15% right off the top, so I'm not quite sure where 75 comes in.

between contributions to SS, medicare, federal income, state income and the pittance levied by my county, I'm hovering around 40. This is of course before the pre-tax income that I try to invest which sees gains eaten at 15%. Changes to the healthcare law will kibosh my annual increase which of course doesn't offset normal inflation and cost of living adjustments as well. If I'm paying more for basic services thanks to government, this is indirect taxation. Gas went up $.20 in my neighborhood this week which I'm sure had nothing to do with another round of QE. That is taxation.

Of course, this is before I even buy anything.

I get it. We need taxes. I'm happy to pay them, I'm just curious as to how much is fair, how much I should be paying and what more I should be doing for other people?


You don't actually have a job, do you. You're just some kid making up numbers in your parents basement. NOBODY pays 60% taxes. NOBODY.
2012-09-18 12:42:37 AM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?


Saying almost half the people in the US believe they are victims and the government owes them everything? Yes, you dumbass.
2012-09-18 12:41:10 AM
1 votes:
I often wonder if the republican disdain for anyone getting anything for free (in their minds, mostly not true) extends to every area of their lives. I imagine a scenario like this.

"I just got a new 60" 3D LED Tv. It cost me 4000 bucks, but it's pretty awesome. What do you have at home?"

"An old 15" CRT that I pulled out of the trash, it does the job, but I really would like to get something nicer, but I can't afford it."

"WHAT? THAT"S UNFAIR! WHY DID I HAVE TO BUY MY TV AND YOU DIDN'T!!!???!?!?!"
2012-09-18 12:35:26 AM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Without millionaires and billionaires, we wouldn't even have medicare or medicaid so thank them.


Actually, no.
2012-09-18 12:33:55 AM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Without millionaires and billionaires, we wouldn't even have medicare or medicaid so thank them. As far as closing loopholes and simplifying the tax code, i am all for it.


Because those people live in a vacuum and make their money in an economy separate from our own?

o5iiawah: In the case of SS, it was a law passed by government in response to a problem created by government and exacerbated by government. Those who tried to hedge against it had their money confiscated and savings destroyed many had no choice to but to get on SS.


You really have no clue do you?

o5iiawah: to be blessed with liberty is to be absent of coercion.


team8lp4.wikispaces.com

You might want to review your history.
2012-09-18 12:29:03 AM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: In the case of SS, it was a law passed by government in response to a problem created by government and exacerbated by government. Those who tried to hedge against it had their money confiscated and savings destroyed many had no choice to but to get on SS.


What was the problem created by government and exacerbated by government that lead to Social Sercurity?
2012-09-18 12:23:58 AM
1 votes:

Shrugging Atlas: spongeboob: He is upset because some people don't pay income taxes, I think his point is if these free loaders paid their share he would have more money in his pocket.

Of course we don't even know if HE pays farking taxes every year, so maybe this is all just a complex exercise in self-loathing.


I think the 'he' in the first referred to 'o5iiahwahwahwah'. We have, at least by his statement, that he does pay federal income tax.

As for Romney, we know where he stands. Again, under Romney's proposed tax structure, he'd go from paying ~15% (at least in the year we have part of a filed return for) to, within rounding error, ZERO.

It's not that Romney hates the non-tax-payers that much. It's that he really, really wants to get in on it.
2012-09-18 12:22:00 AM
1 votes:
Alex Pareene @pareene
Let's be real, the part where Romney claims he inherited nothing and made his fortune from scratch is the weirdest part.
2012-09-18 12:18:51 AM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: that they pay a tax when they buy a 6-er of beer.


Part of that price of that 6 pack is a federal tax...

spongeboob: I could be wrong but wasn't social security started to address people who would have been starving without?


yes it was
2012-09-18 12:16:52 AM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: I have to go to bed soon. I thought the video was was epic failure but the press conference video actually is beyond that if possible


I completely agree. This press conference was just farking painful. The guy's such a off-the-charts dick he can't even see the problem with his comments, much less make a genuine apology for them or even be bothered to issue "Covered my ass" nopology. As amazing as it is to believe he'd been better off just saying nothing at all, at least tonight. Instead the morning news is going to run the audio from the fund raiser AND excerpts of him being a dick at this presser as well.

And you just farking KNOW when this was over tonight he turned to one of his aides and said, "Nailed it."
2012-09-18 12:16:41 AM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: kapaso: I'm just goIng to address your point on SS. How did it work out when Americans were responsible for their own retirement?

You can look up the history of American seniors before SS, it's clear you don't know it.

You forgot that people who tried to save money had their assets seized by FDR right? We cant have anyone saving for their retirement, we have money to print!

And if you're comparing lifestyle, quality of life and life expectancy of 1900 to 1970, then...wow.

There was no public outcry for social security, it was simply another barbed hook that FDR stuck into society that once in would be impossible to remove since nobody will ever vote themselves a tax increase or a reduction in benefits....and that first generation didn't have to pay a penny for it.


Every law or program that has ever been passed or even written was in reaction to a problem, that goes back to the the ten commandments. SS was no
Exception. You believe in a history that did not exist and does not hold up to any amount of scrutiny. I recognize your ideas though, to bad you don't have any of your own, at least then you might be interesting.
2012-09-18 12:15:38 AM
1 votes:
"The only thing I inherited was three letters-- U,S, and A. Also, a free world class education, a healthy stock portfolio, a mansion, Daddy's Rolodex, no debt... But yeah, America! The greatest country on Earth! Except for the 47% I have no understanding of and a complete disdain for..."
2012-09-18 12:09:26 AM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: themeaningoflifeisnot: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The preamble of the Constitution does not establish limits or authority of the federal government. You can find that in article 1, section 8. otherwise known as the "Enumerated powers"


No shiat, Sherlock. But it does inform us as to the intent of our Founders. Read any history of their early struggles in trying to come up with a workable central government plan and you'll see that they never envisioned simply an eat what you kill society.
2012-09-18 12:07:55 AM
1 votes:
imageshack.us
2012-09-18 12:06:54 AM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: I dont care that some people pay state, county, local taxes etc or that they pay a tax when they buy a 6-er of beer.


o5iiawah: between contributions to SS, medicare, federal income, state income and the pittance levied by my county, I'm hovering around 40.


one of these things is not like the other one
2012-09-18 12:04:08 AM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Breaking news: Mittens is already disavowing his remarks about the voters:

1. ROMNEY: I SPOKE TOO HASTILY

GOP candidate says a video clip in which he called nearly half of Americans "victims" was "not elegantly stated" and was "spoken off the cuff."

Source: Link


He's not disavowing shiat there. He's simply stated he could have chosen better words to convey the heart of the message there, which he apparantly completely agrees with. This is at best a "Sorry I got caught" statement, and I'm being generous there.
2012-09-18 12:03:34 AM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Gyrfalcon: It's because of selfish, greedy dicks like this one that we have to have laws requiring taxes to go to social services. Can you even imagine him voluntarily donating any of his hardearned money to charity? F*ck no, if he didn't have to pay taxes he'd be in his basement counting all his extra money like a dragon on its hoard.

Guess what? i do but in a free society, it is none of your farking business what I do with my time or my money. See how this works?

kapaso: Safety net programs are the hallmark of a first world country, their is no prosperous country that exists without them. What exactly do you want to do away with?

Realitity has passed about as cLear a verdict as it ever does on the issue of social programs and it seems your ideas are on the wrong side, but I could be wrong, if you clarified exactly what you want to eliminate that would be a start.

The existence of social programs to benefit the scant percentage of the elderly, children, infirmed and temporarily unfortunate doesn't help explain the staggering numbers of able people who rely on government assistance as their primary form of sustenance. The narrative often gets changed from "We should help the poor" to "So what if so-and-so doesn't want to work? They should be allowed to pursue their passions and an advanced society should support it"

A mentality like that is unsustainable.

For starters, I would like to see Social Security be made voluntary. The idea that we cannot trust someone to plan for their retirement, so we're going to trust a politician with the key to the coffers is absurd. You pay into the program your entire life, cannot borrow against it, cannot retire early and are lucky to see a little of it when you finally reach the age on which to draw benefits. 15% of your paycheck, buried in the ground in the backyard would yield better returns than Social Security. Liberals will often say, "Well SS is so popular!" because when you tax people for 50 years on a contract that you're going to give them a bit of their money back, they expect it. Any honest debate about this is met with claims that I want people to eat dog food,

Again, going back to central planning versus nihilism.


I'm just goIng to address your point on SS. How did it work out when Americans were responsible for their own retirement?

You can look up the history of American seniors before SS, it's clear you don't know it.
2012-09-17 11:54:27 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: the staggering numbers of able people who rely on government assistance as their primary form of sustenance. The narrative often gets changed from "We should help the poor" to "So what if so-and-so doesn't want to work? They should be allowed to pursue their passions and an advanced society should support it"


Translation: I heard once on Rush that most black people treat welfare fraud as a sport, and this was corroborated by one time when I saw this one lady try to use her EBT card to buy twenty bags of Doritos down at Kroger.
2012-09-17 11:54:09 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: The existence of social programs to benefit the scant percentage of the elderly, children, infirmed and temporarily unfortunate doesn't help explain the staggering numbers of able people who rely on government assistance as their primary form of sustenance


Citation for the staggering numbers of able people who rely on government assistance, what are you claiming is this nuber and what is your source?
2012-09-17 11:51:04 PM
1 votes:
I predicted this. I said it was only a matter of time before Mitt revealed his true colors in a way that will alienate undecided voters and put the final nail in his campaign's coffin. So today, I'm very happy to say, I told you so.
2012-09-17 11:48:52 PM
1 votes:

quartercomma: sirrerun: So, how would one "elegantly" state that sentiment, Mitt?

Keep the words the same, but raise your pinky. And keep your monacle adjusted.


But of course.
Good show, Holmes!
I do say.
2012-09-17 11:45:44 PM
1 votes:

indylaw: Don't you think he looks tired?


I've never seen his hair that out of place before.
2012-09-17 11:44:59 PM
1 votes:
Don't you think he looks tired?
2012-09-17 11:39:09 PM
1 votes:

Funk Brothers: I find it amusing that the Romney tape filmed in May took until mid-September to be shown. The Democrats are fighting a losing battle. The Democrats are pulling the few straws they have left. They know their poll numbers from the convention bump are declining and Romney is closing the gap. When the October Surprise comes around, Obama will be doomed.

This is 1980 all over again and it seems a Carter is involved in this candidacy.


Are you serious? This isn't mine, but it's a perfect response:

Obama is not Carter. Romney is not Reagan. And it's not 1980.

Obama winning this election is all but a given. The real battle is in Congress.

If I'm wrong, feel free to save this comment and laugh at me in November.
2012-09-17 11:37:14 PM
1 votes:
taxfoundation.org
2012-09-17 11:34:11 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: rewind2846: 1. Because we are human beings, not animals in the jungle.
2. Because any one of us could be in the same situation ourselves, even the most wealthy of us.

Do you really think we would have survived as a species if we did not help each other and share what we had?
That is what sets us apart from most other animals... and even some of them group together for their mutual benefit. Packs, prides, gaggles, herds, etc.... strength and survival in numbers.

The argument is not that we should help one another but whether it should be compulsory by law at the Federal level. The fact that we are human beings means that we need to operate our society on a basis of law. When you make a statement like "we are humans, so we should help each other" do you mean that each human should out of the goodness of their heart help someone else in need or are you in favor of making it Law that if one individual is in need, it is the obligation of another individual to provide with subsequent punishment if the individual in unwilling or unable? Personally? I'm in favor of a small safety net to help individuals out and my state (PA) has a small income tax which supports those things. Consequently, I am relatively close to my local representatives who vote on these laws at the state level..

People who frame arguments like this often do so with 2 choices: Central Control or Mad-Max anarchy....That if you oppose massive federal benefit programs then you want to live in Somalia.

Mrtraveler01: But hey, thanks to those states, it'll make it easier for me to find a job over their unqualified asses.

And it shouldn't be the job of a steelworker in PA or a personal trainer in California to subsidize the lousy decisions of a school board in Texas since those individuals have no say in the matter, they are just asked to pay taxes and shut the fark up.

So an entity run by the government is not socialism?

what layer of government? You're aware we have those things, right?


Safety net programs are the hallmark of a first world country, their is no prosperous country that exists without them. What exactly do you want to do away with?

Realitity has passed about as cLear a verdict as it ever does on the issue of social programs and it seems your ideas are on the wrong side, but I could be wrong, if you clarified exactly what you want to eliminate that would be a start.
2012-09-17 11:32:13 PM
1 votes:

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 468x351]
[i.imgur.com image 620x388]
[i.imgur.com image 600x400]


I think this is the first time in the years since I've heard of him that I've seen him looking like anything BUT an overconfident, smug douchenozzle.

The schadenfreude...it is gloriously tasty...
2012-09-17 11:32:12 PM
1 votes:

quartercomma: Let's raise the minimum wage to $20/hr. Those suckers will be paying tax in no time!

(The 47% is a cherry-picked number of single filers from 2009, the worst recession year, so it's filled with underemployed folks and single parents, whose childcare credits wipe out federal income tax. The normal number is in the 30s somewhere, I've read numbers ranging form 33-39.--So really it's mostly old people and actual poor working people. The lucky duckies!)


This. It is a one year snap shot. Who knows how much tax those people paid in other years, over their lifetime.
2012-09-17 11:30:47 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: rewind2846: 1. Because we are human beings, not animals in the jungle.
2. Because any one of us could be in the same situation ourselves, even the most wealthy of us.

Do you really think we would have survived as a species if we did not help each other and share what we had?
That is what sets us apart from most other animals... and even some of them group together for their mutual benefit. Packs, prides, gaggles, herds, etc.... strength and survival in numbers.

The argument is not that we should help one another but whether it should be compulsory by law at the Federal level. The fact that we are human beings means that we need to operate our society on a basis of law. When you make a statement like "we are humans, so we should help each other" do you mean that each human should out of the goodness of their heart help someone else in need or are you in favor of making it Law that if one individual is in need, it is the obligation of another individual to provide with subsequent punishment if the individual in unwilling or unable? Personally? I'm in favor of a small safety net to help individuals out and my state (PA) has a small income tax which supports those things. Consequently, I am relatively close to my local representatives who vote on these laws at the state level..

People who frame arguments like this often do so with 2 choices: Central Control or Mad-Max anarchy....That if you oppose massive federal benefit programs then you want to live in Somalia.

Mrtraveler01: But hey, thanks to those states, it'll make it easier for me to find a job over their unqualified asses.

And it shouldn't be the job of a steelworker in PA or a personal trainer in California to subsidize the lousy decisions of a school board in Texas since those individuals have no say in the matter, they are just asked to pay taxes and shut the fark up.

So an entity run by the government is not socialism?

what layer of government? You're aware we have those things, right?


Just admit your a total states' rights supporter, you'd be happy with a return to the Articles of Confederation, and you want every state to be it's own little country...except when they need military protection, tariff controls, interstate highways, impartial courts of law and all the trappings of Full Faith & Credit and Privileges and Immunities we so take for granted that we don't even know they're there.

I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either we are 50 separate countries--which is fine by me, I live in California and we're almost a country by ourselves--or we have a strong central government that can enforce unity between our several states and that means assisting the poorer residents of other states. If you don't like that, fine. But be prepared for a massive immigration from the flyover states to the coasts when your vision of a perfect Un-United States comes to pass. Without support and protection from the federal government, states like Wyoming, Arkansas and Tennessee will be unable to survive for very long, and they won't stay where the jobs and money aren't.
2012-09-17 11:29:40 PM
1 votes:

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 468x351]
[i.imgur.com image 620x388]
[i.imgur.com image 600x400]


Mitt Romney looks like he's either high on speed or has a curling iron up his ass. He's clearly rattled.
2012-09-17 11:28:30 PM
1 votes:

spongeboob: Someone who studies education would know more about teaching 2nd graders than parents would, and should be informing the congressman what to do. Leaders why do we elect them if not to lead.


Parents should choose how their children are educated. 100% of parents agree.
2012-09-17 11:28:24 PM
1 votes:
Juxtaposition

growlersoftware.com
i.imgur.com
2012-09-17 11:26:55 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: dumbobruni: the argument for your "false" statement would be wealthier americans are not eligible for child tax credits

what you said was "every American with a kid gets subsidized". Tell me, is "being eligible" for subsidies the same as "gets" a subsidy? See, my argument for my "false" statement is "what you said is false".

dumbobruni: but they do remain eligible for 529s

yes, still not the same as "gets".

dumbobruni: and "I would imagine" = "I have no farking clue"

no, I have a pretty good clue, actually. See, that's how taxes work. If everyone just paid for the services they received, it wouldn't be taxes. That's how poorer kids get to go to public school - someone else picks up the slack that their parents cannot.


so who is picking up the slack for wealthy people getting mortgage subsidies?

replace eligible with gets. wealthy people do a very good job of maximizing their subsidies. like mortgages, they get the lions share of the benefits....close to 70% of 529 benefits go to the wealthy. 529s don't have to be used for colleges either.
2012-09-17 11:22:16 PM
1 votes:
And republican Jesus took the loaf of bread and said unto his followers "I got mine, Fark you! get your own."
2012-09-17 11:20:38 PM
1 votes:

Egalitarian: this kind of thing reminds me of something I read 20 or more years ago, and I think it was a reported account by Herman Melville but I can't actually find it. If anybody else remembers this please let me know!

In a fishing community on the northeast coast, in the 1700's or 1800's, an unmarried mother with her two young children fall into a sink hole. This is on some fairly major thoroughfare in the town. Despite the cries of the children, nobody rescues them or helps them. One of the children dies, then the mother, then the other child. The bodies stink and somebody finally gets around to pouring lime down the hole.

This to me is emblematic of libertarianism. If you are a penniless, friendless person who falls in a pit, nobody will help you. You will be left to die and the only charity around is somebody shelling out for the lime to cover your rotting corpse. Atheist Randroids say "oh well the church will help you" - yeah if the local churches deem you fit to help. Single mothers and gay people need not apply.


That was from a Melville novel called "Redburn: His First Voyage," i believe. It was fictional, and i don't think they were in a sinkhole, they were just starving in the streets. Young Master Redburn mused that someone should put them out of their misery, but realized that a society that wouldn't offer a penny of help would spend thousands of pounds to catch a murderer. And then they died and out came the lime.
2012-09-17 11:13:28 PM
1 votes:
It's almost like these people think there is some kind of social contract between a government and citizens implying the government has a certain responsibility to make sure the people's needs are met. What wacked-out liberals thought of that idea?
2012-09-17 11:10:12 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: o5iiawah: mainstreet62: People will eat and have shelter and medicine?

Go fark yourself, you POS.

We arent a society where a minority provide and the majority receive. Go fark yourself if you think you're entitled to someone else's property simply because you exist.

In the absence of a crime, When did one person incur a debt to take care of another?

Oh, right about here:

9 Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"

"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

(Gen. 4:9)

farking theocrats ;)


Not my fault I read the Bible...
2012-09-17 11:10:09 PM
1 votes:

rewind2846: I just KNEW this Mittacular fu(k-up would make a tasty, tasty thread.

Not a good way to endear yourself to da votahs, Mitt... especially when so many of those people on welfare and food stamps and student loans and pell grants and SSI and other assistance are (or were, if they have any sense at all) republicans. I know you were talking with a bunch of your richy-rich-rich buddies and all and didn't think what you said would leave that room, but even with the bad recording the condescension was thick enough to cut with a bejeweled dagger.

If I were a working-class republican, I'd be pissed.
If I were a used-to-be-working-class-but-laid-off republican I'd be even pissed-er.

47% of the citizens of this country. I can smell the smoke from here.


And it's not like that 47% is just people who don't pay federal income taxes because they don't work. It includes the working poor who take advantage of earned income credits. It includes working folk who may not pay federal income tax, but still pay state income tax, which can be pretty significant. It includes working folks who may not pay federal income tax, but do pay significant payroll taxes that fund SS and Medicare.

So, Mitt is shiatting on not just the Republican stereotype of someone sucking at the government teat--black urban welfare queens--but also all of the millions in that 47% number who are actually working hard for not much.
2012-09-17 11:09:46 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah:
In the absence of a crime, When did one person incur a debt to take care of another?


1. Because we are human beings, not animals in the jungle.
2. Because any one of us could be in the same situation ourselves, even the most wealthy of us.

Do you really think we would have survived as a species if we did not help each other and share what we had?
That is what sets us apart from most other animals... and even some of them group together for their mutual benefit. Packs, prides, gaggles, herds, etc.... strength and survival in numbers.
2012-09-17 11:04:47 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: mainstreet62: People will eat and have shelter and medicine?

Go fark yourself, you POS.

We arent a society where a minority provide and the majority receive. Go fark yourself if you think you're entitled to someone else's property simply because you exist.

In the absence of a crime, When did one person incur a debt to take care of another?


Oh, right about here:

9 Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"

"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"


(Gen. 4:9)
2012-09-17 11:04:02 PM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: o5iiawah: Education is a function of state and local governments who know best what the needs of their community are.

Given how badly some schools are run they don't know what the needs of their communities are.


And school boards in Kansas and Texas give me little confidence that they can they do understand the needs of their communities.
2012-09-17 11:02:36 PM
1 votes:

dumbobruni: o5iiawah: bgilmore5: Move your corporation to Somalia. Let's see just how successful it can be without roads, telecommunications, security, etc.

There are roads and bridges in South Korea, Singapore, Canada and Eastern Europe. Get off the Somalia argument. It isn't really a point to begin with.

A CEO nowadays can run a company (located in Singapore) from his Manhattan apartment (charged to the company) with a primary residence in St. Kitts. Tax the hell out of people, call them greedy assholes and that they owe their lives to government because we have roads and bridges. Watch what happens.

they will do it regardless of the tax rate and political environment.

Singapore, cited by many advocates of low tax rates and business friendly policies, has a significant asset offshoring problem of its own. $170 billion in assets hid offshore, or about 70% of GDP

Link


Singapore also has universal single-payer health care.

/Always fun to bring that fun fact to this debate ;)
2012-09-17 10:59:47 PM
1 votes:
OK, maybe I'm missing something really obvious, but the unemployment rate -- while higher than desired -- is nowhere near 47%.

Who are all these "moochers" supposed to be?
2012-09-17 10:59:42 PM
1 votes:
pbs.twimg.com
2012-09-17 10:59:16 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Mrtraveler01: o5iiawah: Government cant "Give" food, healthcare, education or housing without taking the equivalent resources from someone else.

What equivalent resources is government taking in terms of education?

the cost of providing that education


Ah, well I think a well educated populace is worth that cost.
2012-09-17 10:58:39 PM
1 votes:

impaler: What if the education government provides produces enough qualified workers so companies can have enough workers to make a profit?

If you think the US is comparable to the USSR, you're a farking retard.


Education is a function of state and local governments who know best what the needs of their community are. We have a federal government to protect our rights, operate fair courts, maintain a military and protect patents along with a few other things. Deciding how a community of kids should be educated is up to the parents and school board to decide how it is best done. A public school isn't socialism. if it is run and funded locally with input from parents who hold administrators accountable, that is about the smartest and best form of government you can have.

Keep it close to you.
You need an aircraft carrier? We have the Feds for that
You need a road? Talk to your state
You want to know what your brat is doing in the classroom? Talk to your local school board.

I never compared the US to the USSR. You might try reading before you post.

dumbobruni: and the US Federal government wouldn't have to take resources from others if the bootstrappy parts of the country actually carried their own weight (except for Texas, that's the ONE bootstrappy state that isn't a drag on the Federal budget)


I'm all for it. There's no reason to tax individuals out of their take-home paychecks, send the money to the feds, then have US reps lobby for it to go back to the states, then have county executives and state reps lobby for the money to go back to the districts just to build a section of sidewalk in the town park for a "public works project"
2012-09-17 10:56:09 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: bgilmore5: Move your corporation to Somalia. Let's see just how successful it can be without roads, telecommunications, security, etc.

There are roads and bridges in South Korea, Singapore, Canada and Eastern Europe. Get off the Somalia argument. It isn't really a point to begin with.

A CEO nowadays can run a company (located in Singapore) from his Manhattan apartment (charged to the company) with a primary residence in St. Kitts. Tax the hell out of people, call them greedy assholes and that they owe their lives to government because we have roads and bridges. Watch what happens.

We've already seen what happens ... huge increases in GDP.

dailydish.typepad.com
2012-09-17 10:52:13 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: bgilmore5: Move your corporation to Somalia. Let's see just how successful it can be without roads, telecommunications, security, etc.

There are roads and bridges in South Korea, Singapore, Canada and Eastern Europe. Get off the Somalia argument. It isn't really a point to begin with.

A CEO nowadays can run a company (located in Singapore) from his Manhattan apartment (charged to the company) with a primary residence in St. Kitts. Tax the hell out of people, call them greedy assholes and that they owe their lives to government because we have roads and bridges. Watch what happens.


What the hell are you saying? Are you drunk or is english not your first language?

The reason people bring up Somalia is because there is no government ie Libertarian wet dream. I don't think anyone has ever excused South Korea, Singapore, Canada or Eastern Europe of not having governments. So what is your point?
2012-09-17 10:50:59 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Tax the hell out of people, call them greedy assholes and that they owe their lives to government because we have roads and bridges. Watch what happens.



Well, every other time we've done it it's led to an economic boom. Or is low taxes for rich people and corporations the only thing THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!!1! has going for it?
2012-09-17 10:50:53 PM
1 votes:
Hey, at least he's honest in proclaiming that he wouldn't work so much as president for half of Americans.

He's certainly honest about giving me and my foreign partner the finger.
2012-09-17 10:48:18 PM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 425x618]


the duchess is a lot of fun.
2012-09-17 10:45:47 PM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 425x618]


That post is a thing of deep & enduring beauty.
2012-09-17 10:43:23 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: dumbobruni: skullkrusher: dumbobruni: every American with a mortgage gets subsidized by the federal government. and every American with a kid gets subsidized as well.

first part true, second part false

wealthy families don't benefit from 529 savings plans or public schools?

whoa. We went from "every American with a kid" to "every American with a kid in a 529 plan?" I would imagine many wealth people are net payers into the public schooling portion of the Federal budget so to say they get a subsidy there doesn't make much sense.


the argument for your "false" statement would be wealthier americans are not eligible for child tax credits

but they do remain eligible for 529s

and "I would imagine" = "I have no farking clue"
2012-09-17 10:41:28 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Aarontology: Yeah, those soldiers and veterans need to shut the f*ck up.

Soldiers and veterans are entitled to healthcare, education and housing.

The Constitution. Read it. You might sound like less of a dipshiat.

beakerxf: and when they provide too much for their citizens

Food, Education, healthcare and Housing are all free in Cuba. It is such a fantastic place that tens of thousands of people try to swim 80+ miles to get the fark away from it.


Government cant "Give" food, healthcare, education or housing without taking the equivalent resources from someone else. When everyone is entitled to receive, nobody produces. When nobody produces, you get Cambodia, the USSR, etc...

Amazing that after 150M dead in the 20th century we still have to debate this.


You really really need to read up on Cambodia before you go comparing it to a country where everybody is entitlled to receive.
2012-09-17 10:36:50 PM
1 votes:
I missed the press conference, but I'm getting the replay on CNN now, and one look into Romney's eyes is all I need to know what he's thinking:

'The one thing I have wanted in life for most of the past decade is going down in flames before my very eyes. Not only that, I am dangerously close to having this one statement be my legacy in American history. I'm scared. I don't know what to do. Someone help me. Please.'
2012-09-17 10:36:33 PM
1 votes:

improvius: I'm no fan of Romney, but those choppy edits smack of dishonesty and misrepresentation.


well he pretty much owned it in the press conference, so...
2012-09-17 10:36:18 PM
1 votes:

Grungehamster: I can't believe there are people honestly calling this the thing that puts the nail in the coffin of the Romney campaign. Have these people paid any attention to the language that has been used for years? The fact is that the meme that someone would support a Democrat means they are on the dole and living off the welfare state, and that the fact that Democrats are competitive is a function of the "fact" that roughly half of the people in this country are mooching off of you and the rich, and they have to be forced out of dependency.

I'm seeing more people stoked over Romney making the comments than I see people whose minds have been swayed by them.


What planet are you on?
2012-09-17 10:34:19 PM
1 votes:

improvius: I'm no fan of Romney, but those choppy edits smack of dishonesty and misrepresentation.


yes they totally left out the part before the clip rolls where he said "this is what a complete asshole would say if he was an over entitled silver spoon douchebag"
2012-09-17 10:32:08 PM
1 votes:

improvius: I'm no fan of Romney, but those choppy edits smack of dishonesty and misrepresentation.


Yeah, that must be why Romney hasn't denied any of it.
2012-09-17 10:30:57 PM
1 votes:

InmanRoshi: FuturePastNow: That's a good description of every farmer in America.

And defense contractor.


I live in the DC metro area, and NoVa defense contractors are some of the most vocal and aggressively derpy Teabagger types. I once saw one actually foam at the mouth, with spittle flying as his face turned red, as he ranted and raved about "welfare types".

/he was also a double-dipper, former military who was drawing at least two government pensions and was receiving gold-plated medical coverage
2012-09-17 10:28:48 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: spongeboob: Mitt Romney didn't even fix his hair for this press confrence, and did he take any questions?

he took 2 questions. That WAS the press conference


two questions, were they from a real journalist or from a gay escort?
2012-09-17 10:26:26 PM
1 votes:

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: I'd call it quick damage control. It's the first thing the Romney campaign's done right in the last couple of weeks.


What damage did he just control by not disavowing any of it, and stammering his way through some transparent, bullshiat talking points? He said nothing. He didn't answer direct questions. And he looked absolutely panicked. Someone should have given him some Xanax before he went out there just now. And maybe a script that didn't essentially admit that he actually does hate half the country, at a bare minimum.
2012-09-17 10:22:02 PM
1 votes:
There you go Mitt, you're going to bring tose Obama voters over to your side by insulting them. Good strategy, doesn't make you look out of touch at all...

God, what a douche... Only people that come close are the die hard Romney apologists...
2012-09-17 10:21:38 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Romney "clarification" coming up on msnbc.

wait... to know this you must've been watching Larry O'Donnell... did you just admit to watching Larry OD?


He's a cheerleader but he's sometimes pretty funny.
2012-09-17 10:19:52 PM
1 votes:

beta_plus: Corvus: What entitled "people" who pay no income tax may look like:

[ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com image 452x693]

Taxing corporations does not work. They do one of 3 things:
1) raise prices
2) cut dividends
3) fire workers


They will always pass the cost onto someone else.
This is not because they are evil. They are at a different point on the chain of production and consumption.

Try taking some basic non-Keynesian Macro Economics so you don't sound like an idiot.


Move your corporation to Somalia. Let's see just how successful it can be without roads, telecommunications, security, etc. If you would have looked at the graphic, you would see those corporations received more from the government than they paid in. I challenge you to find any economic theory that proposes that as a good idea.
2012-09-17 10:19:15 PM
1 votes:
i568.photobucket.com
2012-09-17 10:19:14 PM
1 votes:

trotsky: Me too. I pay for these things. I will vote for Obama to prevent a free loader like Mitt Romney getting any where near the White House. 47k tax credit for a farking dancing horse. Free loader indeed. Between me and Mitt Romney there's only one free loader and I don't have a bloody dancing horse.


The thing that always makes me scratch my head with this sort of thing (and the expenses thing for UK MPs) - they spend millions or even billions trying to get into office, and they have in Romney's case hundreds of millions in assets, but they get their accountants to chase all these sorts of tax credits and loopholes even when they know they plan to run for office and that it is the sort of thing that will make them look bad, to the people they need to vote for them, far in excess of any possible financial value - I mean how many millions in advertisements would it take to get back the amount of votes lost for something like that?
2012-09-17 10:16:18 PM
1 votes:
Me,Me Me, Me...
imageshack.us

She's warming up!
2012-09-17 10:14:30 PM
1 votes:

sonnyboy11: vegasj: sonnyboy11: Bullshiat. You know goddam well his blanket statement of an "overwhelming majority" is false and unsubstantiated.

Maybe he was referring to this "overwhelming majority"

Farkin hell... really?


Meet vegaskkk of the Stormfront FARK Action Squad. Hang around in other threads and watch him in action.

Funk Brothers: Iran helped us in 1980 and will help us again in 2012.


Party First, Party Always.
2012-09-17 10:12:35 PM
1 votes:
What we are seeing here is a political party in meltdown. You have a Yankee, Roosevelt Republican presidential candidate forced to say things he doesn't really believe in order to please whatever audience he is addressing that day. It's completely unsustainable and moments like this are inevitable. He can't make these statements on the record for obvious reasons, and once the off-record statements are made public, he can't back down from them because the conservative base and media actually see this tripe as their defining principle.
2012-09-17 10:10:41 PM
1 votes:

spongeboob: So you say you want prison to be miserable and I am asking where you draw the line?


oh, yes, well before torture.

spongeboob: I want prisoners to be treated with human dignity is that too much to ask, and maybe give them some tools so they don't become repeat offenders. For repeat offenders yeah I am okay with life sentences at some point.


sure, being miserable doesn't mean you have to live in your own shiat and eat rat eyeballs for dinner. Prison is not supposed to be pleasant. It is punishment. I think it would behoove use as a society to make an effort to make sure that people in prison do not return once they are released, however. Treatment for drug addicts over prison though, that's a not brainer
2012-09-17 10:06:09 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?


My grandfather, an 86 year old veteran, and my wife's mom, sixty and still working two jobs, would like to punch both you and Mitt Romney in the face.
2012-09-17 10:04:55 PM
1 votes:

Funk Brothers: spongeboob: Are you saying that Romney is going to be involved with our enemies to ensure that he wins election Link

So what? I would be happy if Romney wins and Obama gets sent back to teach at UChicago. Iran helped us in 1980 and will help us again in 2012.

Besides look at this polling data from September 13th. Romney would win by a landside.



I honestly have a hard time believing you're that farking stupid. You don't really believe the crap that comes out of your mouth, do you?
2012-09-17 10:03:36 PM
1 votes:

quizzical: RyogaM: Hey, guess what Mitt, some of those 47% of Americans who pay no income taxes? Those people you say think "they are victims" and "can't live without the govt.?" Well, uh, guess what?

Some of them regularly vote Republican.

That's right, not every Republican voter is rich enough to pay income taxes. Yes, they pay other taxes, like SSI, sales taxes, property taxes. But not every Republican also pays income taxes. You just said those people are pretty much worthless, so, great job.

Here's the thing that might save Mitt with his base - none of them think THEY are in the 47% that Mitt is talking about. It's OTHER people who won't work and would rather mooch off the hardworking REAL citizens of the U.S. of A. They won't register the scorn Mitt heaped in their direction because they, are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.


pretty much this.

every American with a mortgage gets subsidized by the federal government. and every American with a kid gets subsidized as well.

most these people think that they don't, and its farking irritating.
2012-09-17 10:01:40 PM
1 votes:

Funk Brothers: spongeboob: Are you saying that Romney is going to be involved with our enemies to ensure that he wins election Link

So what? I would be happy if Romney wins and Obama gets sent back to teach at UChicago. Iran helped us in 1980 and will help us again in 2012.

Besides look at this polling data from September 13th. Romney would win by a landside.


Oh and I forgot to mention

You are a traitor if you don't care if romney is working with foreign agents to win the election, and you said "I would be happy if Romney wings"
2012-09-17 10:00:11 PM
1 votes:
and this is what happens when you think the people on talk radio are smart and make sense
2012-09-17 09:59:51 PM
1 votes:

HypnozombieX: I have worked all my life sometimes taking two jobs just to make ends meet and still struggle to get by week to week.

fark YOU, YOU ARROGANT fark.


Hypnozombie

/it will feel so good to watch this elitist turn fail so hard in November


See? Here's the problem. This arrogant rich fark will lose in November, thankfully. But, he won't lose anything really dear to him. I hereby propose a Constitutional amendment, such that the losing side in any Presidential contest, both the Candidate, and his or her running mate, shall have one finger removed and destroyed, in public.
2012-09-17 09:59:46 PM
1 votes:

Funk Brothers: spongeboob: Are you saying that Romney is going to be involved with our enemies to ensure that he wins election Link

So what? I would be happy if Romney wins and Obama gets sent back to teach at UChicago. Iran helped us in 1980 and will help us again in 2012.

Besides look at this polling data from September 13th. Romney would win by a landside.


So are you a troll or do you not understand the electoral college?

do you want to wager on the election?
2012-09-17 09:58:52 PM
1 votes:

shower_in_my_socks: Hector Remarkable: Imagine the delusional, pathetic idiot who might actually believe the load of crap you just spouted.


There are rightwingers right now who want Romney to actually run with this "gaffe" -- they think he can actually win by making this argument the centerpiece of his campaign.


I pray that he does. Be honest, Mitt. Be the elitist prig that you are and keep spouting your utter disdain for the poor, the middle class, folks on Medicare, folks on Social Security. Keep hammering that point home until millions of Republicans finally wake up and realize, shiat, you're talking about them, too! You're not just pissing on urban black welfare queens, you're sticking your little white dick up the asses of Republicans who benefit from government programs, too.
2012-09-17 09:57:37 PM
1 votes:
Calling 47% of the electorate moochers who pay no taxes and who have an overly developed sense of entitlement is an interesting political strategy.

Talking about other people not paying taxes while not releasing his own taxes (especially 2009) seems an especially canny move.

This story seems to be gathering steam and even in an election season already rife with gaffes, lies, blunders and goofs galore it stands out.

Found this part interesting...

If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see-without actually doing anything-we'll actually get a boost in the economy.

Faith based economics, apparently.

Simply by not being Obama the markets will rise in anticipation of Mitt's brilliance or something.

Good to have a plan, I guess.
2012-09-17 09:55:15 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: spongeboob: skullkrusher: spongeboob: skullkrusher: your nearest workhouse. You're supposed to hate those

You mean the way prison is supposed to be horrible so that people don't ever want to go back? Because that is so much better than providing job training and treatment for substance abuse.

since I have no idea wtf you're talking about or what I said has to do with substance abuse treatment, I can't say whether I mean it that way or not.


Well it made sense in my head.

When you said your nearest workhouse. You're supposed to hate those I read that as though you thought that there should be workhouses and that conditions in them should be so bad that people would not want to go to them. Upon farther review I guess I jumped to conclusions.

However it is very common for people to state that prisons are to cushy and that people should be punished not rehabilatated It was wrong for me to assumet that you agreed with this sentiment from your comment.

well, prison should be harsh and miserable. It's farking prison, not summer camp. However, any rehabs that can make you less likely to wind up back there should be attempted for the sole selfish purpose of benefiting society in the long run


So would you be cool with bringing back the stocks, how about whipping, branding, amputation etc.?
2012-09-17 09:48:56 PM
1 votes:

Funk Brothers: I find it amusing that the Romney tape filmed in May took until mid-September to be shown. The Democrats are fighting a losing battle. The Democrats are pulling the few straws they have left. They know their poll numbers from the convention bump are declining and Romney is closing the gap. When the October Surprise comes around, Obama will be doomed.

This is 1980 all over again and it seems a Carter is involved in this candidacy.


Are you saying that Romney is going to be involved with our enemies to ensure that he wins election Link
2012-09-17 09:46:48 PM
1 votes:
I see that the inevitable Romnoid meltdown is proceeding as scheduled.

/He really can't coordinate without his beloved Norman.
2012-09-17 09:45:16 PM
1 votes:

Funk Brothers: I find it amusing that the Romney tape filmed in May took until mid-September to be shown.



That's because that isn't how it happened. It's been on the Internet for months, just in various pieces. Someone finally contacted the person who posted the vids and got them all together in one place.

As to your other delusional point, not a single Democrat that I know is desperate right now. Cautiously optimistic, at worst.
2012-09-17 09:45:01 PM
1 votes:

semiotix: A METRIC FARK-TON OF THAT 47% ARE POOR, RECENTLY UNEMPLOYED REPUBLICANS OR RED-STATE RETIREES WHO USED TO BE VOTING FOR YOU UNTIL YOU SHIAT ALL OVER THEM JUST NOW.


They don't see themselves as being dependent upon the government, even when they are 100% dependent upon the government. They are all bootstrappy, independent snowflakes, as far as they are concerned. Like this guy:

i45.tinypic.com

He was on welfare, and food stamps! And did anyone help him out? NO!
2012-09-17 09:41:53 PM
1 votes:

vegasj: Dude, shhhhh... don't hit Obama-lovers with facts, facts scare them into name calling and stuff.


Yeah, Democrats even recently declared they didn't even care what fact-checkers have to say.

Oh, wait, that was your party. My point is "dumbocratz ur badz!!11"
2012-09-17 09:41:14 PM
1 votes:
30 second ad, 16 second clip, the SAME 30 second ad, 17 second clip, the SAME GODDAMNED 30 second ad, F*CK YOU HUFFPO!
2012-09-17 09:40:47 PM
1 votes:
Damn, Republicans are evil. Just...evil.
2012-09-17 09:40:43 PM
1 votes:
I often tell wingnuts that i left home at age 17 with little more than a bicycle and $500 that i won by placing third in that Fountainhead essay contest that they promote in high school. Because it's TRUE.

And they tell me that no, i'm lying, that i've never had a job in my life, and live in my parents' basement eating hot pockets... which would be hard, because my parents are both dead and didn't have a house when they were alive. Because if i vote for Obama, that's just how it has to be.

Idiots.
2012-09-17 09:37:49 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Kome: skullkrusher: Kome: skullkrusher: Kome: Two things. First, I'm a lefty? News to me. I always thought I was conservative. Second, why would I think making people work is mean even if I was a lefty? That doesn't seem like either a conservative OR a liberal position. Some shades of libertarian, possibly, but not conservative or liberal.

I don't know why making people work for their public support is mean. In fact, I think it's a wonderful idea, if possible.

So does just about every liberal and conservative I've ever met. Why then did you say that would make me supposed to hate work houses?

cuz I thought you were one of them. My apologies

One of whom? Why did you think I was one of them?

people who are opposed to making people work for their public support. Is this circular dance native to your people?


I just don't understand your train of thought from your Weeners to me up until now. First you say I should hate work houses, then you say it's because I'm liberal - which I'm not, and still have no clue why you thought I was - which is a line of thinking I genuinely haven't heard from anyone, liberal or conservative. Then you say you thought I was opposed to making people work for their public support, which is as I've said not a position I've ever heard coming from any side of the political spectrum except possibly some variants of libertarianism. And you still haven't explained why you thought I was one of those people who are opposed to making people work for their public support. A little explanation would be helpful.
2012-09-17 09:37:19 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?


How dare the little people expect to get something back for their taxes!!
2012-09-17 09:36:18 PM
1 votes:

sonnyboy11: Bullshiat. You know goddam well his blanket statement of an "overwhelming majority" is false and unsubstantiated. I am a strong supporter of Obama and am not "dependent on government". I don't mind my taxes being used to provide basic services to those who need them at the time. Republicans only don't believe in this stuff until it's them or their families impacted and then, of course, they're the first in goddam line for whatever hand outs they can get. Your side is hypocritical and weak. And Romney is a classless snob who thinks others are beneath him because of his monetary wealth.


cdn3.sbnation.com

/In the same camp
//Doesn't use any government services but I would rather have the safety net than people dying in the streets
2012-09-17 09:34:41 PM
1 votes:

vegasj: ferretman: And whose fault is that? It's Congresses and the Presidents. President Obama has not even mentioned these multi-million/billion corporations. Just wants to raise taxes on those making $150,000.00+ (combined). Real small businesses that do not pay minimum wage but actual salaries will be effected. A company needs to make ~$100K per employee that makes ~$50K + benefits. Increasing their taxes do not allow these small business grow.

Dude, shhhhh... don't hit Obama-lovers with facts, facts scare them into name calling and stuff.


Feel free to answer the same question I asked him. :P


How come the last time we cut taxes on people making $250,000+ we had the slowest economic growth in decades?

And why should I expect this time to be different?
2012-09-17 09:34:37 PM
1 votes:

vegasj: Dude, shhhhh... don't hit Obama-lovers with facts, facts scare them into name calling and stuff.


Derp
2012-09-17 09:34:13 PM
1 votes:

vegasj: The overwhelming majority of voters who back President Barack Obama do so because they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"


Ladies and gentlemen... the guy calls the truth out and he gets roasted for it.

More at 11 (& 7am, & 8am, & 9am, & noon, and tomorrow)


Bullshiat. You know goddam well his blanket statement of an "overwhelming majority" is false and unsubstantiated. I am a strong supporter of Obama and am not "dependent on government". I don't mind my taxes being used to provide basic services to those who need them at the time. Republicans only don't believe in this stuff until it's them or their families impacted and then, of course, they're the first in goddam line for whatever hand outs they can get. Your side is hypocritical and weak. And Romney is a classless snob who thinks others are beneath him because of his monetary wealth.
2012-09-17 09:33:32 PM
1 votes:

eddiesocket: themeaningoflifeisnot: RyogaM: He wasn't claiming 47% of Obama voters think of themselves as victims. He was saying 96% of Obama voters think of themselves as victims. If Obama said that 96% of Republicans were racists or 96% clung to guns and religion, or 96% wanted to see people starve, die from treatable health disease or died outside in the, well, you'd have yourself a shiatstorm. Clearly, the above only applies to 90% of Republicans.

jk

It's worse than that, though. Romney's premise wasn't just "Obama voters." It was "the 47% of voters who don't pay taxes," who he assumes will vote for Obama. Romney truly believes that 47% of the electorate are worthless pieces of shiat living high off the government hog, and that it's his job to stop them.

56% of those who don't pay income tax are retired. Obama voters?


Romney is so extreme that he views Social Security as an entitlement instead of as a forced retirement savings program that the government has imposed on us for generations. People worked to pay into Social Security, Mitt. They earned that Social Security check. It's not a f*cking handout, douchebag elitist.
2012-09-17 09:28:04 PM
1 votes:
So if you give 1/3 or a 1/4 of your life's income you aren't suppose to get anything for it?

fark YOU ROMNEY!

farking douchebag would have you work for free, give your earning to his war buddies so they can have the world enslaved with them at the top for generations to come, you know, just like the rest of human history.

People have not changed, they are shiat, you are either a tyrant that enslaves his fellow man, or a simpleton that admires and submits to said tyrants.
2012-09-17 09:27:32 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: impaler: skullkrusher: I don't know why making people work for their public support is mean. In fact, I think it's a wonderful idea, if possible.

Some sort of "earned income tax credit" or "work for welfare" system...

Wait. That's exactly what we have.

nothing even close to what we have.


Except it's exactly what we have. Well, except for children getting food stamps - the mooches.
2012-09-17 09:27:04 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Kome: skullkrusher: Kome: Two things. First, I'm a lefty? News to me. I always thought I was conservative. Second, why would I think making people work is mean even if I was a lefty? That doesn't seem like either a conservative OR a liberal position. Some shades of libertarian, possibly, but not conservative or liberal.

I don't know why making people work for their public support is mean. In fact, I think it's a wonderful idea, if possible.

So does just about every liberal and conservative I've ever met. Why then did you say that would make me supposed to hate work houses?

cuz I thought you were one of them. My apologies


One of whom? Why did you think I was one of them?
2012-09-17 09:26:21 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: RyogaM: He wasn't claiming 47% of Obama voters think of themselves as victims. He was saying 96% of Obama voters think of themselves as victims. If Obama said that 96% of Republicans were racists or 96% clung to guns and religion, or 96% wanted to see people starve, die from treatable health disease or died outside in the, well, you'd have yourself a shiatstorm. Clearly, the above only applies to 90% of Republicans.

jk

It's worse than that, though. Romney's premise wasn't just "Obama voters." It was "the 47% of voters who don't pay taxes," who he assumes will vote for Obama. Romney truly believes that 47% of the electorate are worthless pieces of shiat living high off the government hog, and that it's his job to stop them.


56% of those who don't pay income tax are retired. Obama voters?
2012-09-17 09:24:58 PM
1 votes:

JudgeSmails: Mrtraveler01: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fundraiser was at this guy's Boca Raton home in May.

Say no more.

I'm surprised it wasn't at Versailles.


Ha.

Seems like everyone in Boca Raton is an asshole with facts like these:


According to MessageLabs (an email security vendor), Boca Raton is the "spam capital of the world", being the source of a significant proportion of all spam generated worldwide, not surprising given the area's appeal, the personal fortunes of typical spammers, and the area's notorious past as a favorite of organized crime. According to the Miami Herald, the city has a long history of involvement in confidence tricks. Richard C. Breeden, former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, once called the city "the only coastal city in Florida where there are more sharks on land than in the water".[citation needed] In the keynote address to a computer security conference on June 8, 2004, Bruce Sterling described the city as the "Capone-Chicago of cyber fraud".

On July 22, 2004, Boca Raton resident Scott Levine was charged with the largest computer crime indictment in United States history. Federal prosecutors allege that Levine unlawfully accessed Acxiom, a database of consumer data, to steal detailed personal information of millions of people.


In other words the kind of city you would expect a Republican fundraiser to take place in
2012-09-17 09:24:56 PM
1 votes:
Leave it to Dancin_In_Anson to defend the indefensible.

/Shut down welfare ...
//... and the red states will crumble.
2012-09-17 09:24:48 PM
1 votes:

vegasj: The overwhelming majority of voters who back President Barack Obama do so because they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"


Ladies and gentlemen... the guy calls the truth out and he gets roasted for it.

More at 11 (& 7am, & 8am, & 9am, & noon, and tomorrow)


Fark you. I work for a living and provide myself with those things. I also pay a greater percentage of income tax than that moocher Romney.
2012-09-17 09:24:40 PM
1 votes:
I wonder what percent of that 47% think they pay income taxes?

That reminds me of our favorite dentist.
growlersoftware.com
2012-09-17 09:22:47 PM
1 votes:

HAMMERTOE: Nothing is going to change.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle keep declaring "War" on the effects, but nobody does a damn thing about the causes. War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism- these are all wars on the side- effects of the real problem: the predatory program of exploitation by the rich. Exploitation of natural resources, (with the accompanying meddling in the governments in the Middle East,) THAT'S where your problem in terrorism really comes from. Exploitation of human resources, with the attendant lack of any hopes for the future-THERE'S the cause of your poverty and drug use. But any real measures to help the little guy get ahead- that's "Class Warfare and "socialism". The rich are on top of the heap, and they plan to stay there. The "American Dream" is a threat to them, for it represents their supplantment by somebody else at the top of the pecking order.


^THIS
2012-09-17 09:22:27 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Kome: Two things. First, I'm a lefty? News to me. I always thought I was conservative. Second, why would I think making people work is mean even if I was a lefty? That doesn't seem like either a conservative OR a liberal position. Some shades of libertarian, possibly, but not conservative or liberal.

I don't know why making people work for their public support is mean. In fact, I think it's a wonderful idea, if possible.


So does just about every liberal and conservative I've ever met. Why then did you say that would make me supposed to hate work houses?
2012-09-17 09:21:59 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: Eh, Obama never stops with the class warfare.

Romney should do the same.


It's only class warfare when the Democrats do it!
2012-09-17 09:21:30 PM
1 votes:
The overwhelming majority of voters who back President Barack Obama do so because they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"


Ladies and gentlemen... the guy calls the truth out and he gets roasted for it.

More at 11 (& 7am, & 8am, & 9am, & noon, and tomorrow)
2012-09-17 09:19:58 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: This may just change my vote. He'd have it locked up if he was this honest publicly, but at least he speaks the open and honest truth at some point in time...

If he says this in a public speech I'll be all his.


Losers gonna lose. Be of the body.
2012-09-17 09:18:58 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Kome: skullkrusher: Kome: skullkrusher: Bloody William: Nabb1: "A government that has the power to give you something has the power to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson. If you can provide yourself with the necessities in life, you have no right to demand others do so for you.

"The poor who have neither property, friends, nor strength to
labor, are boarded in the houses of good farmers, to whom a
stipulated sum is annually paid. To those who are able to help
themselves a little, or have friends from whom they derive some
succor, inadequate however to their full maintenance,
supplementary aids are given which enable them to live
comfortably in their own houses, or in the houses of their
friends."

-Thomas Jefferson. Notes on Virginia, 1782.

you dropped something

"Vagabonds without visible property or vocation, are placed in work houses, where they are well clothed, fed, lodged, and made to labor."

the end of your quote

So they are provided clothing, food, housing, AND a job? Awesome! Where do we sign up?

your nearest workhouse. You're supposed to hate those

Why am I supposed to hate those?

I dunno, you're the lefty. You tell me. Something about making people work being mean, I think


Two things. First, I'm a lefty? News to me. I always thought I was conservative. Second, why would I think making people work is mean even if I was a lefty? That doesn't seem like either a conservative OR a liberal position. Some shades of libertarian, possibly, but not conservative or liberal.
2012-09-17 09:17:37 PM
1 votes:
When rape seems to be the better choice for a talking point, you may be doing it wrong.
2012-09-17 09:15:52 PM
1 votes:
Can you imagine the gall of some Americans thinking that all Americans deserve health care!? My god, what would Jesus think!

Oh right, Republicans have Social Darwin Jesus who believes you should just shoot the poor or let the lazy bastards die of cancer because they deserve it. And if you work all your life but get injured and lose your health insurance or your insurance won't cover enough to keep you from going bankrupt, well FARK YOU. You didn't work hard enough all your life, ya lazy bastard.

Well, unless you think one of your friends could make some profit off of the sick and dying. They we'll had you a voucher to give to him. You'll still have to pay on your own enough to go bankrupt or die trying, by my friend over there will make a healthy profit off of it.
2012-09-17 09:15:47 PM
1 votes:
What can I say? Mitchell Romney has done it again. He has proven without a shadow of a doubt that he is the chosen son of Friedrich Nietzsche, Edgar J. Wittgenstein, and Glenn Beck combined. He is willing to say things behind closed doors that ordinary men would not be willing to say in public. You can judge the intelligence of a decision by how much liberals hate it, and this is the most intelligent thing Mitchell Romney has done during the campaign. What a hero. Thank you, Mitt. Thank you for loving America.
2012-09-17 09:15:24 PM
1 votes:
This is so bad, the trolls have apparently given up.

Or they won't receive their talking points until tomorrow morning.
2012-09-17 09:07:38 PM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: Was Obama's "Clinging to guns and religion" comment the top story on the BBC website when it broke?



Mitt Romney is unbelievably unpopular in the UK. It was reported today that David Cameron said that Mitt Romney "had that unique distinction of uniting all of England against him with his various remarks." A poll released today also shows that 47% of Brits would look at the US less favorably if Mitt was elected President, vs. only 3% who would be more favorable.

Keeping in mind that they're our closest allies.
2012-09-17 09:03:31 PM
1 votes:

Coco LaFemme: I truly want to believe this is the moment that doomed his campaign. Of course, he's had so many of those the last few months, it's been hard to keep track.


The link says there are more clips from the speech to come. Bwa ha ha ha ha......
2012-09-17 09:03:05 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "My dad, as you probably, know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico ... and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this," Romney said. "But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. ... I mean I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino."

Those Mexicans got it so easy...


He's just saying what we all know. If he was Latino, more Latinos would vote for him based on his race.
And that benefit would in no way be overshadowed by the number of voters who wouldn't then vote for him because of his race.

God damn idiot.
2012-09-17 09:00:39 PM
1 votes:

Cubicle Jockey: Paul Baumer: Fun fact about where those moochers all live -

[taxfoundation.org image 800x590]


BWAHAHAHAHA!

I am curious as to why Alaska has such a remarkably lower percentage (21%) than even the second least-moochiest state, Massachusetts (27%).


They get that big socialist oil revenue sharing from the state. And I have no idea why the hell you would live up there without a decent job. Good luck trying to be homeless there.
2012-09-17 08:59:04 PM
1 votes:

phritz: Romney, in a different video from the series:
My heritage, my dad as you probably know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico, and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this. [Rich donors cracking up]

But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. He lieved there for a number of years. And, uh, uh, I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be, uh ... Latino.
--Mitt Romney


He's half right. It would be helpful for a Republican in a general election to be latino. It would probably help him/her win some Latino votes. Of course, it would be impossible for a Latino Republican to win the primary in the first place.
2012-09-17 08:58:56 PM
1 votes:
I'm dependent on the government. hell, i ain't swimming the damn missouri river just to get to work. would you?

gosh, no, it took me those fancy socialist paved roads and a bridge to get over here.
2012-09-17 08:58:35 PM
1 votes:
I have worked all my life sometimes taking two jobs just to make ends meet and still struggle to get by week to week.

fark YOU, YOU ARROGANT fark.


Hypnozombie

/it will feel so good to watch this elitist turn fail so hard in November
2012-09-17 08:58:32 PM
1 votes:
"My dad, as you probably, know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico ... and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this," Romney said. "But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. ... I mean I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino."

Those Mexicans got it so easy...
2012-09-17 08:52:25 PM
1 votes:
"There are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name it."

Oh my god this guy is an asshole.
2012-09-17 08:51:48 PM
1 votes:

shower_in_my_socks: Then a speaker at the 1988 RNC said it, and I think that's when it really took off as a saying.



CORRECTION: A speaker at the DNC said it. He was talking about George HW Bush at the time, because his dad was former-Senator Prescott Bush. In short, the Republican Party is full of privileged douchebags who think they're completely self-made.
2012-09-17 08:51:01 PM
1 votes:
Dear Grammas and Grampas in Florida,

Mitt thinks you're lazy, and he wants to tax you more.


Dear Poor White People,

Mitt thinks you're using the Earned Income Tax credit to rip off America.

You are the 47%.
2012-09-17 08:50:37 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: One of the things at work here (I think) is a Fundamental Attribution Error. In other words: If I fail it's because of circumstances beyond my control. But if YOU fail it's because you're lazy and stupid and you dress funny.


The Fundamental Attribution Error is the basis of all modern Republican beliefs.

If I write a book about Republicans, the title will be either:
Forever Wrong
The War on Facts
Fundamental Attribution Error
Farking Republican lying sack of shat skumbags.

I haven't decided yet.
2012-09-17 08:48:49 PM
1 votes:

Nabb1: vartian: Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?

No. I believe peopled are entitled to those things. It is farking ludicrous to even entertain the thought that 47% of the country agrees with me.

No, they aren't. You're not entitled to anything else from anyone else. Providing for those who cannot provide for themselves is charity, and there's nothing wrong with helping people. But no one has a right to demand the government provide them anything. "A government that has the power to give you something has the power to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson. If you can provide yourself with the necessities in life, you have no right to demand others do so for you.


A simple Google search shows that the quote actually originated with Gerald R. Ford.
2012-09-17 08:45:39 PM
1 votes:

themeaningoflifeisnot: mrshowrules: Canada had debt problems in the 90s. We even had our credit downgraded to AAA to AA. We since recovered our credit rating and we have a balance budget predicted for 2016 and a 7.1% unemployment rate. You know how we did it? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't by cutting spending or social benefits.

I'm not sure the comparison holds. Isn't Canada's GDP less than the state of California's? Hardly the same scale of economy when compared to the United States.


We raised taxes and regulated the banks. Canada is 1/10th the size of the US but our unemployment increase because we raised taxes. If you don't like the scale, look at the US's own history. There was a 65 year study published yesterday I believe that shows the raising taxes on the upper brackets has no impact on GDP or unemployment. Just consider Canada as an example of how well the US could be doing today if it wasn't for electing Dubya.
2012-09-17 08:42:27 PM
1 votes:

MorrisBird: As it turns out, Mitt Romney is a really horrible human being. Who knew? Oh, wait, more than 47% of us did. Now, get your asses out and vote.


QFMFT
2012-09-17 08:36:27 PM
1 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Aarontology: "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Yeah, those soldiers and veterans need to shut the f*ck up.

And old people and children.


And people that got laid off in 2008.

/ I collected UI for a few months...
2012-09-17 08:32:55 PM
1 votes:

stainedglassdoll: The job market needs to be fixed. The ever widening income/class gap needs to be fixed. Without direct acknowledgment and plans for these remedies, the GOP won't solve any problems.


But what Romney want's to do is play class warfare and pretend why the country is not doing better is because of all the poor, old and sick people not working hard enough.
2012-09-17 08:31:49 PM
1 votes:
a completely unadvertised network (all of them) primetime news replacement broadcast of the complete video would have been the greatest October Surprise of all time . Surely the combined superpac $ could have afforded that.

Mitt might have actually dropped out.
2012-09-17 08:29:22 PM
1 votes:
it had been a day since a Romney fark up. Good to see him keeping pace.
2012-09-17 08:28:13 PM
1 votes:

All2morrowsparTs: Speaking of sounding like an idiot, the assertion that you made in the first part of your statement is micro economics.

Also if you took an accredited course in micro economics you would know that taxes are not fully passed on to the customer and typically shared between producer and consumer. The other two of your absolutes are not. Corporate taxes are do not effect hiring as employees are an expense and drive down profits therefore owed taxes. If you fire some one because of increased taxes you increase your taxable earnings. that is just poor management.


Makes perfect sense if controllers of capital are mobster-extortionists. Gee, what a fine economy you have there. It sure would be a shame if taxes got raised, some folks could not make high enough returns. Yup, a damn shame, someone may just get hurt.
2012-09-17 08:27:34 PM
1 votes:

WTF Indeed: mrshowrules: I'm saying Obama now even has a shot at Texas. I'm talking the whole video not just the 47% crack. It makes Republicans stay home, it energizes Obama's base and quite possibly allows the DNC to hold on to the Senate which is very tight. Wait until the seniors clue in to what Romney just said. wait until Romney makes things much worse but playing the victim on this tomorrow. Wait until Obama uses it to ask for Romney's tax returns again. This will be the gift that keeps on giving.

You think I'm being stupid. Will see

There are two things most people who talk politics like you lack, scope and context. Those are two things you are a missing here.


assets.sbnation.com
2012-09-17 08:27:13 PM
1 votes:
I'm dependent on government and happily so. I like it when people get food stamps, because it means they're less likely to steal crap out of my carport.

But seriously. Why is it always us vs. them when it comes to GOP-ers' view of government?? It's not like we import an alien species from another planet to run the DMV office, the probate judge's office and the police department and oversee the construction of dams and bridges. They're people just like me.

If anything, an "alien species" runs our banks and insurance companies, because they answer to dollars and shareholders, not to the people they're serving.
2012-09-17 08:26:49 PM
1 votes:
So the son of a CEO and Governor called half the country moochers? This really distills the problem down to his essence, doesn't it?
2012-09-17 08:24:08 PM
1 votes:
All this from a guy who would rather eat tuna fish off an ironing board than get a job or have his wife get a job.
2012-09-17 08:23:42 PM
1 votes:

shower_in_my_socks: Oh, and Romney doesn't believe he was born into privlege:

"I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."


In 1994 I first heard about Mitt Romney, I was at an AMC car show and George Romney was speaking and he gave his little speech that included how his son was running for office and that we should give money to his campaign to improve America. Funny that for such a selfmade man he needed help from his dad to start and finance his political career.
2012-09-17 08:21:46 PM
1 votes:
Hey, guess what Mitt, some of those 47% of Americans who pay no income taxes? Those people you say think "they are victims" and "can't live without the govt.?" Well, uh, guess what?

Some of them regularly vote Republican.

That's right, not every Republican voter is rich enough to pay income taxes. Yes, they pay other taxes, like SSI, sales taxes, property taxes. But not every Republican also pays income taxes. You just said those people are pretty much worthless, so, great job.

But, hey, if anyone on this thread actually thinks this is a GOOD thing for Mitt to say, I'm sure you will contact the Romney campaign and tell him to run ads with him saying the exact same thing with a better camera. No one thinks what Romney said was smart. It's what you expect to hear from a radio shock jock, not a major political party candidate. So, again, great job Romney, you twit.
2012-09-17 08:21:43 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Is this where we pretend 'people who live off the government' only means minorities on food stamps and doesn't include the 40 million people on Social Security and Medicare, many of whom survive solely on those programs and vote Republican, or the defense contractors and the thousands who work for them who wouldn't have jobs without massive government funding, who also vote Republican?


This is the big, big question.

If Obama's people can convince Mr. and Mrs. AARP that he's very much talking about them (and there's no way to get anywhere near that 47% number without talking very clearly about them), then the election should be a bloodbath. On the other hand, though, there's no demographic whose allegiances are more well-cemented (not entirely one way or the other, but individually cemented) than the over-65 voters.
2012-09-17 08:17:41 PM
1 votes:
So these are all those voters in the states that take more federal taxes and they give back, like Mississippi, Alabama and Texas?

Then of course, there are the folks that give more in federal taxes then they take back. State like New York and Connecticut.

So who is exactly is voting for Obama?
2012-09-17 08:14:21 PM
1 votes:
CLASS WARFARE.
2012-09-17 08:14:09 PM
1 votes:

beakerxf: when they provide too much for their citizens (Iraq right before the second US war)


Well, that's a new one. Usually people bring up England or Sweden or maybe even Communist Russia when making that example. I never would have picked pre-war Iraq as the example of Socialism gone too far
2012-09-17 08:13:05 PM
1 votes:
2012-09-17 08:12:23 PM
1 votes:
Oh, and Romney doesn't believe he was born into privlege:

"I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."
2012-09-17 08:06:49 PM
1 votes:
If I believe that people are "entitled to health care, to food, to housing" well, call me Jesus Christ.
2012-09-17 08:05:37 PM
1 votes:
Would that be the same government that bailed out Bain & Company?
2012-09-17 08:05:25 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: How about you take care of yourself FIRST, then look to help others?

Ah, that's why Romney hasn't yet. He's busy helping himself to government largess. When he's done, he'll let others get a turn.
2012-09-17 08:05:13 PM
1 votes:

RexTalionis: I'm not saying that I agreed with what Romney said. I'm saying it's really not that big of a deal but for the political hay being made of this


Your concern is noted. I'm not sure why we need to attribute hypothetical quotes no one actually said.

If you don't find it to be a big deal either way, like you said, no one is forcing you to comment in this thread.
2012-09-17 08:02:56 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: Fine then why are you against it then? If they just pass it on to consumers then it's no problem to tax them because it would not hurt their profits at all would it?


Well, because it is bollocks. Companies don't sit around saying "we could raise prices and stay competitive, but will we forgo those extra profits", and then suddenly when taxed change their minds. Taxes on profit have no direct impact on their costs, and so have no impact on their optimal pricing strategy. Taxes on inputs (raw materials, labor, etc.) will raise their costs and if it applies to their competition as well then a general rise in prices will tend to happen across the board, but based on their goods' price elasticities they will have to eat some of the rise in their costs and reduce their profits. So taxing companies is always going to redistribute money from the company to the general public (unless the tax is specifically earmarked for some purpose), although not always very efficiently, it depends on the market in question, and what sort of taxation is being discussed.
2012-09-17 08:00:13 PM
1 votes:
Sure, those people who support Obama, who vote for democrats, who live in blue states, which give more to the federal government than they get back, those people Mitt?
2012-09-17 07:59:28 PM
1 votes:

Pincy: RexTalionis: Look, I don't like defending Romney, but I don't really see the big deal about this. He's a candidate running an election with an extremely polarised populace. Of course he's going to denigrate the voters of the other side.

You really think that the Obama campaign doesn't think that a good portion of Romney's base is a bunch of racist whackjobs, either?

Ya, but Obama is hopefully not going to be stupid enough to say that two months before the election.


He doesn't believe it either.
2012-09-17 07:56:32 PM
1 votes:
"believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Aren't those the very foundation of the hierarchy of human needs?
2012-09-17 07:54:50 PM
1 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Aarontology: "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Yeah, those soldiers and veterans need to shut the f*ck up.

And old people and children.


And the people working for a non- living wage, like many of the companies which made Rmoney wealthy
2012-09-17 07:54:06 PM
1 votes:

beta_plus: Taxing corporations does not work


Giving corporations tax breaks does not work either, particularly because they proceed to do everything BUT spending the money in a way that would even transiently be beneficial to their country or countrymen.

RexTalionis: Of course he's going to denigrate the voters of the other side.


The Republicans have been trying to convince the few Democrats on shaky grounds (at least, re: Obama) to come over to their side. This shiats all over that idea.
2012-09-17 07:53:26 PM
1 votes:

Zoophagous: Funny thing is the vast majority of people I know who are voting Romney are actually dependent on the government.

/the olds
//well older than me


Did you see that poll where the asked people on government programs if they were on government programs and about 50% said they weren't? Republicans think it's different when they are on government programs and it doesn't count.
2012-09-17 07:53:18 PM
1 votes:

RexTalionis: GhostFish: RexTalionis: Look, I don't like defending Romney, but I don't really see the big deal about this. He's a candidate running an election with an extremely polarised populace. Of course he's going to denigrate the voters of the other side.

You really think that the Obama campaign doesn't think that a good portion of Romney's base is a bunch of racist whackjobs, either?

This would be like Obama coming out and saying that everyone voting against him is a racist whackjob.

Okay, Obama knows better than saying that, even in private. But you can't tell me that a good number of liberals aren't thinking that exact thought.


I can tell you no one thinks 47% of the country is racist
2012-09-17 07:51:49 PM
1 votes:

spongeboob: To be fair the Republican idea of the dole includes teachers, firefighters government workers(accept elected Republicans) union memeers and especially people who worked for the government and now are collecting pensions.


But magically not Republicans who work for the government. They have magic boot straps!
2012-09-17 07:49:56 PM
1 votes:

AdolfOliverPanties: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "All right -- there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

I am part of the 47% and I am not dependent on the government for anything besides roads, public schools, fire department, police etc.

I don't need housing, food or health care provided from the government.

Does Romney truly believe that EVERYONE who votes for Obama is on the dole?


To be fair the Republican idea of the dole includes teachers, firefighters government workers(accept elected Republicans) union memeers and especially people who worked for the government and now are collecting pensions.
2012-09-17 07:48:21 PM
1 votes:

Bloody William: Nabb1: "A government that has the power to give you something has the power to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson. If you can provide yourself with the necessities in life, you have no right to demand others do so for you.

"The poor who have neither property, friends, nor strength to
labor, are boarded in the houses of good farmers, to whom a
stipulated sum is annually paid. To those who are able to help
themselves a little, or have friends from whom they derive some
succor, inadequate however to their full maintenance,
supplementary aids are given which enable them to live
comfortably in their own houses, or in the houses of their
friends."

-Thomas Jefferson. Notes on Virginia, 1782.


Need a picture of Jefferson saying "OH, SNAP!".
2012-09-17 07:48:03 PM
1 votes:
Obama campaign's Weeners - "It's hard to serve as president for all Americans when you've disdainfully written off half the nation."
2012-09-17 07:44:30 PM
1 votes:

Cletus C.: Corvus: Cletus C.: Corvus: Cletus C.: The things he said, I thought they were facts. Why are Democrats suddenly so afraid of facts?

That people bankrupt because they have medical bills because they are dying of cancer we should tax them more and throw them on the street? You agree with that?

Are you the same person who created the ad where Romney killed the laid off worker's wife?

I am asking you a question. Is that person "entitled" to their medical care? Yes or No? Romney was implying they should pay more in taxes and if they can't afford it should be thrown on the streets. Is that not right?


If I am saying something which he disagress tell me.

Is what he said not enough for you? You need to apply your own twisted implications.

All the other libs managed to pee themselves over what was presented. Why are you so special?


Sorry what part was I wrong with? please explain.
2012-09-17 07:41:12 PM
1 votes:
What an Obama-voting freeloader might look like:

3.bp.blogspot.com
2012-09-17 07:40:55 PM
1 votes:

Cletus C.: Corvus: Cletus C.: The things he said, I thought they were facts. Why are Democrats suddenly so afraid of facts?

That people bankrupt because they have medical bills because they are dying of cancer we should tax them more and throw them on the street? You agree with that?

Are you the same person who created the ad where Romney killed the laid off worker's wife?


I am asking you a question. Is that person "entitled" to their medical care? Yes or No? Romney was implying they should pay more in taxes and if they can't afford it should be thrown on the streets. Is that not right?


If I am saying something which he disagress tell me.
2012-09-17 07:34:39 PM
1 votes:

Bloody William: Fundamental ideological differences: Liberals fear something bad will happen to someone who doesn't deserve it. Conservatives fear something good will happen to someone who doesn't deserve it.


I'm stealing this. Will credit.
2012-09-17 07:34:30 PM
1 votes:
Well, now we really need to see Mitt Romney's tax returns.
2012-09-17 07:33:52 PM
1 votes:
The things he said, I thought they were facts. Why are Democrats suddenly so afraid of facts?
2012-09-17 07:32:51 PM
1 votes:
Tomorrow, Mitt will come out and say he was misquoted, he believes that anyone who makes less than the $250,000 middle class minimum should just die.
2012-09-17 07:06:59 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: impaler: What do you think we're doing?

Creating a dependency class that come to EXPECT..."help" regardless of ability to pull themselves out otherwise.

[csb]

Local lady was offered a promotion within her place of employment. This promotion brought with it supervisory duties, more responsibilities, opportunities for further advancement, FREE training to further these opportunities and most importantly a substantial raise. Exactly the way it's supposed to work right? She turned it down because she would lose her benefits...and not the ones she already has with her employer. THAT is some farked up shiat right there and is what takes away from those that really NEED it.
[/csb]


Does anyone actually believe this story?
2012-09-17 06:34:14 PM
1 votes:
This is not a big deal. Funny, but not a big deal. The real story is that Romney was known to give such a stupid stump speech at fundraisers and the Obama campaign was able to get someone into one to record it. Which means there are more than likely more stories like this to come out.
2012-09-17 06:30:40 PM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: ariseatex: Dusk-You-n-Me: Mark it: this video is the final stake through the heart of the Romney campaign. Election now over.- Josh Barro (@jbarro) September 17, 2012

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
90% of "game-changing" gaffes are less important in retrospect than they seem in the moment.

Disagrees:

[news.bbc.co.uk image 300x300]

[www.solidprinciples.com image 400x319]


I remember watching the Dean Scream live. At the time I thought it was prime Daily Show fodder, but nothing too bad. It wasn't clear how bad it was until later.
2012-09-17 06:28:32 PM
1 votes:

ariseatex: Dusk-You-n-Me: Mark it: this video is the final stake through the heart of the Romney campaign. Election now over.- Josh Barro (@jbarro) September 17, 2012

Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight
90% of "game-changing" gaffes are less important in retrospect than they seem in the moment.


Disagrees:

news.bbc.co.uk

www.solidprinciples.com
2012-09-17 05:19:48 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: [csb]

Local lady was offered a promotion within her place of employment. This promotion brought with it supervisory duties, more responsibilities, opportunities for further advancement, FREE training to further these opportunities and most importantly a substantial raise. Exactly the way it's supposed to work right? She turned it down because she would lose her benefits...and not the ones she already has with her employer. THAT is some farked up shiat right there and is what takes away from those that really NEED it.
[/csb]


And I turned down a $1000/year higher salary because it would raise my taxes!!!!

/We are playing "things idiots pretend happen, but don't," right?
2012-09-17 05:19:01 PM
1 votes:
So you're telling me that people who need government benefits to keep themselves and their children alive don't want to vote for the guy who wants to take those benefits away? I am thoroughly, thoroughly shocked and appalled at this horrifying corruption.
2012-09-17 05:11:39 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Bloody William: But you don't seem to have a problem with the cracks

I have a problem with those that expect to be taken care of regardless of ability (see above)


But, like the cracks, there will always be a few of them. The question is which do you think should be the higher priority: filling the cracks or weeding out the lazy?
2012-09-17 05:09:32 PM
1 votes:
Whar those motherf'in tax returns!? WHAR?
2012-09-17 05:03:20 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Mark it: this video is the final stake through the heart of the Romney campaign. Election now over.- Josh Barro (@jbarro) September 17, 2012


i50.tinypic.com
2012-09-17 05:01:49 PM
1 votes:

Mark it: this video is the final stake through the heart of the Romney campaign. Election now over.

- Josh Barro (@jbarro) September 17, 2012
2012-09-17 05:01:40 PM
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Nabb1: Who is saying we shouldn't help those in poverty?

Nobody.

Bloody William: My contention is that these things aren't available without exception or failure, and even with charity there are cracks through which people can fall.

This will never change. Never. And I would suggest that a bloated federally run system is more apt to have bigger cracks.


But you don't seem to have a problem with the cracks. In fact, your previous post to me implied that there are no cracks. The biggest people expressed by conservatives regarding the safety net isn't that the cracks are too big, but that lazy, undeserving people will receive benefits.
2012-09-17 04:39:39 PM
1 votes:
99.999% of "humans" believe they are entitled to food and shelter.
2012-09-17 04:38:48 PM
1 votes:

vartian: Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?

No. I believe peopled are entitled to those things. It is farking ludicrous to even entertain the thought that 47% of the country agrees with me.


No, they aren't. You're not entitled to anything else from anyone else. Providing for those who cannot provide for themselves is charity, and there's nothing wrong with helping people. But no one has a right to demand the government provide them anything. "A government that has the power to give you something has the power to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson. If you can provide yourself with the necessities in life, you have no right to demand others do so for you.
2012-09-17 04:37:34 PM
1 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Aarontology: "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Yeah, those soldiers and veterans need to shut the f*ck up.

And old people and children.


And half the country.
2012-09-17 04:34:26 PM
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Go f*ck yourself, Mitt

2012-09-17 04:31:47 PM
1 votes:

Bloody William: YOU COULDN'T EVEN QUOTE THE FULL SENTENCE AND THE CONTEXT THEREIN.


he's a teabagger, what do you expect?
2012-09-17 04:30:04 PM
1 votes:

Bloody William: It assumes that those three things are readily available


They are.
2012-09-17 04:29:52 PM
1 votes:

Nabb1: I for one don't consider compensation for services rendered the same thing as public entitlements.


I for one, consider both to be forms of welfare.
2012-09-17 04:26:28 PM
1 votes:

Blues_X: Yes.


But...


Aarontology: Yeah, those soldiers and veterans need to shut the f*ck up


Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: And old people and children


ManateeGag: yeah, fark those people who want food and shelter!


Those three statements seem to suggest that soldiers, old people, children and people who want food and shelter are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Which is it?
2012-09-17 04:22:57 PM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: Dancin_In_Anson: they are "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Is this an inaccurate statement?

Yes it is. He said 47%. 47% might want access to affordable health care insurance and employment. The number of people as a percentage that want a free ride, would in theory be at least less than the unemployment rate or do you assume all people who can't find work are lazy?


You're talking to a guy who honestly believes the current US government is comparable to the nazis.
2012-09-17 04:17:05 PM
1 votes:

Aarontology: "dependent on government" and "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing,"

Yeah, those soldiers and veterans need to shut the f*ck up.


And old people and children.
 
Displayed 393 of 393 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report