I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Extreme Humor

Gorilla Mask

Funny Games

Free Samples

Oddee

Funny Stuff

123 Games

Crazy Games

Wow Funny Jokes

Funny Videos

Viva La Games

I hate retail

Chaostrophic

CityRag

Urlesque

Comics Alliance

Funny Videos

FreeGame Heaven

Caykeyfi Games

Crazy News

Lastminute Auct

All Trivia Game

Hot Games

Not Healthy



Back to Listing

Romney On His Controversial Fundraiser Remarks

Hits: 5891 | Rating: (2.3) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: fancylad
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
papajon0s1
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 579 Posts
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:20:10 AM
Wrong. If anything, this helps Romney. The left will misinterpret this any way they can just like everything else he says, so how does this change anything?

madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6464 Posts
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:56:49 AM
The liberals have distorted and twisted this around so much now, that they are contradicting themselves. Like madest, he believes that southerners are all on welfare and that Romney was talking about them. This rhetoric is absolutely ridiculous.
-------
Says the southern guy on welfare...

miasmaat
Female, 18-29, Western US
 299 Posts
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:18:55 AM
Wow... deja vu of Bush when he is asked a non scripted question.

Agent00Smith
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2355 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:30:22 PM
Lower your standards

DingDingDong
Male, 30-39, Western US
 1504 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:21:06 PM
I'm not going to vote for Romney.
But I still don't see why everyone is upset over this.
Like he said here again, 47% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes. So his message of lowering taxes means nothing to them. Stop reading into and taking out of context what he said.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:16:36 PM
@MeGrendel: and it's not tax credits, school grants or business loans

I DO have a problem with these items as well as almost any other form of redistribution on a federal level.

Not a single one of the previously mentioned items cannot be handled on a state to state basis. We cannot have progress if laws continue to be passed at the federal level, since it prevents experimentation with different concepts. Quite literally, it obstructs the trial of new ideas.

Furthermore, in my opinion, no level of government should give out any type of loan or tax credit. These are not concerns of the government.

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3785 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:50:54 PM
I am laughing so hard. FoxNews.com is trying to distract their readers from the Mitt Romney debacle by dragging out a 14 year old clip of Obama saying he is in favor of redistribution in some instances. I can imagine what they are doing on their cable show. They just jumped the shark and @MeGrendel falls in line like a good little sheep. Baaaa baaaa baaaaaaaaaaaa.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4865 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:55:30 PM
HumanAction-"What exactly do you have a problem with about that?"

Because the 'Redistribution' he was talking about has a very definite meaning, and it's not tax credits, school grants or business loans (which I have no problem with).

His 'Redistribution' is nationalization of property, eminent domain, and land reform.

His 'Redistribution' is telling business owners 'you didn't build that' on your own so he'll have the support of dumb when he confiscates their profits (after all, it's not all 'their's', is it?).

His 'Redistribution' is limiting the amount of wealth or property that an individual can own.

His 'Redistribution' is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3785 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:24:22 PM
"The similarity I suggest is that, in both cases, both speakers used "the wrong words" to convey their message."

Look at that two for two. I agree with you again on everything you just said.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:09:29 PM
@HolyGod: What exactly do you have a problem with about that?

I'll take a jab at this; I don't think I've had a conversation with you in awhile (or ever?).

My first issue with it is bureaucratic waste. There is a research study on Mises.org (I can find it if you want..) that found that, for every $1 redistributed by the federal government, $5 goes to the bureaucracy; these are people that do not need our financial help. The bureaucratic waste in private charity is a paltry $0.33 per $1 redistributed.

Next comes the personal question of, is this the jurisdiction of the federal government or the states? I believe it to be the states.

Furthermore, there is a concern for morality. I believe it to be one of the greatest sins to take the earnings of one person (by force) and give them to another. Such laws are well-intentioned, but have no place in government.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5184 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:55:52 PM
MeGrendel

"I wonder if the recently discovered recording of Obama admiting he believe in redistribution will get as much press?"

What exactly do you have a problem with about that? Tax credits for children or buying a house, public education or safety, school grants or business loans are all forms of distribution.

Maybe it is just a fundamental difference of opinion, but I think it is disgusting to have a system where some children go to bed starving while some people eat $700 an ounce caviar.

I don't like a system where some people are born rich and spend all their lives playing around without ever really contributing to society while some people work hard their whole lives and die penniless.

For some people, the government redistribution you find so vile is the only way they survive.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:50:23 PM
@mark: As for the comparison of the two "gaffes", we were just using different criteria for the word 'similar'.

I consider them similar because, in each case, the words being attacked aren't actually what the speaker meant to say. I agree that they're different situations because Obama meant to say those literal words, and then had them taken out of context; Romney, on the other hand, did not have his words taken out of context.

The similarity I suggest is that, in both cases, both speakers used "the wrong words" to convey their message. I do think that Romney's statements were more damning though (as per my last post).

That all being said, I think they're all moot points. I am very certain at this point that Obama is going to win.

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3785 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:40:37 PM
"I still think that the other points I made earlier, in my first post, are still valid though."

Absolutely.

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3785 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:38:44 PM
This is way different than "you didn't build that". Mitt's speech is not being taken out of context. The more of the speech you hear the worse Mitt sounds. It is his actual words in full context that are damning. Did he mean it? I seriously doubt it. He seams like a decent man. But the talk is out there. In the words of Jerry Seinfeld, Good luck with all that.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:38:09 PM
@mark: I started to make an argument about how he is right that roughly 47% of the population will vote for Obama regardless (which I think is true - same can be said of him) but that he didn't fully link the two groups (those paying no income tax vs. those entrenched in voting for Obama).

Then I reread the transcript and read this part:

These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income tax.

That was a stupid thing for him to say. You're right on this one.

I still think that the other points I made earlier, in my first post, are still valid though.

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3785 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:26:11 PM
"I don't think he meant that literally all of those in the ~47% group will definitely vote for Obama. I think he meant moreso that there is a significant portion of the population that has become accustomed to receiving government aid, and that it is very likely that those individuals will vote for Obama."

I totally agree that he was just playing up to the crowd. Believe me I have said some stupid things when I have been alone with me friends. It was just stupid of him to assume there is no recording device around. And you are wrong, he literally did say, "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what." I posted the transcript of this section of the talk in this thread. And notice I do not call it a speech. This was very off the cuff - but so so stupid. I feel like I am watching a train wreck on TV. It is very weird.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:17:30 PM
@mark: He was playing politics and it was what those attending the fundraiser wanted to hear. That being said, I don't think he meant that literally all of those in the ~47% group will definitely vote for Obama. I think he meant moreso that there is a significant portion of the population that has become accustomed to receiving government aid, and that it is very likely that those individuals will vote for Obama.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a very big Romney guy and I think he definitely chose his words very poorly in this case. However, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as it is being made out to be. Just as the "you didn't build that" controversy, the words betray the intent of the message.

But yes, you are correct that the 47% is certainly made up of reasonably equal political affiliations.

inaria
Female, 18-29, Canada
 1521 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:16:37 PM
Can't we all just admit Mitt Romney is stupid and move on?

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4865 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:08:20 PM
markust123-"MeGrendel, that is about as close to you admitting that you were wrong as I have seen. I'll take it."

I'm sure there are a lot of things you delude yourself into taking in your little world. It in now way resembles reality.

LordJim-"A tax on yachts? How dreadful, how intrusive, how relevant to the subject?"

You don't find the unintended results of over-taxation relevant?

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3785 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:53:38 PM
HA, why does he assume that all of the 47% who don't pay income tax are going to vote for Obama? I bet the percentage of republicans to democrats in this 47% is about even. More than likely half of independents are in this group also. He really did shoot himself in the foot. Conservative media will spin this until their followers, who would already have voted for Mitt, won't recognize the truth but the independents don't pay attention to opinion media. They will get the raw words straight from Mitt's mouth and form their own opinions. I guarantee he has lost independent votes.

LordJim
Male, 50-59, Europe
 4919 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:45:48 PM
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:44:12 PM
@MeGrendel

A tax on yachts? How dreadful, how intrusive, how relevant to the subject? But you are probably right. The the yacht owning demographic will probably go Mitt. Mostly, some will have moral qualms.


HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:37:35 PM
Hmm... I've read through the arguments and I just don't see it.

I can't call this a 'gaffe' as so many have put it because he is correct (roughly). Sure, this ~47% pays FICA and excise taxes, but they don't pay federal income tax; this is what he claimed. I can't fault someone for being honest.

Now, as for those who think he does not care about that group, his words do not indicate this. His words suggest that he isn't going to focus on attracting that group politically because he does not feel that the effort will justify the rewards. Again, it just isn't what he said.

Now, for those who think he insulted that group, I think he did somewhat. SOME of those people deserve the criticism, but surely not all of them do.

This is the same as 'You didn't build that'... It's only damning to those incapable of developing intelligent thoughts.

onoffonoffon
Male, 30-39, Western US
 2176 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:29:50 PM
I have a positive opinion of him since this has come out.

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3785 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:26:55 PM
@MeGrendel, that is about as close to you admitting that you were wrong as I have seen. I'll take it.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4865 Posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:25:14 PM
markust123-"You do not insult half of America if you want to be elected president."

Yeah, he could try Obama's tactic of insulting ALL of America. (some are just too dumb to realize they've been insulted).

Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.