Romney
-
Plus you originally only posted a small portion of the quote.
I guess there's a definition for that in your propaganda manual but....
WSS
-
But I guess it's a small improvement that you "would guess" that Obama isn't a communist.
As always with today's Republican Party: baby steps.
-
Plus you originally only posted a small portion of the quote.
I guess there's a definition for that in your propaganda manual but....
WSS
Plus you originally only posted a small portion of the quote.
I guess there's a definition for that in your propaganda manual but....
As
Ha. Nice try. As if you needed the rest.
And direct quotes are now "propaganda." Perhaps we need to define that, too.
You only had to know the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. But you either didn't, or you didn't want to admit that you did in order to, as you would say, "protect your boy."
-
But I guess it's a small improvement that you "would guess" that Obama isn't a communist.
As always with today's Republican Party: baby steps.
But I guess it's a small improvement that you "would guess" that Obama isn't a communist.
As always with today's Republican Party: baby steps.
I have never called him one.
Small s socialism is about as harsh as I've gotten.
WSS
-
Seriously, Steve? "Roosevelt believed that government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities. President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes." Not enough there to understand that Romney isn't being accurate?
-
That's not what "poisoning the well" is. You should really familiarize yourself with some of those concepts.
There really isn't a way to interpret that quote in the way you are now pretending you did without redefining what the definition is, so explaining that's what you did doesn't help. Plus, the whole point of the programs you imagine suggest a belief in "equality of outcome" are actually programs designed to provide equality of opportunity, so it's a non-starter anyway.
Also, one of these days you're going to show an understanding of the fact that taxes on wealthier Americans don't simply pay for programs for the poor. It just won't be anytime soon.
That's not what "poisoning the well" is. You should really familiarize yourself with some of those concepts.
Oh come on.
" Steve is an idiot. Steve is ignorant. Steve uses propaganda techniques. Therefore whatever steve says is suspect."
And of course taxes on the rich are used for programs. Nobody ever said that's all they're used for.
WSS
-
But I guess it's a small improvement that you "would guess" that Obama isn't a communist.
As always with today's Republican Party: baby steps.
I have never called him one.
Small s socialism is about as harsh as I've gotten.
WSS
I have never called him one.
Small s socialism is about as harsh as I've gotten.
WSS
Steve, a person who believes in what Romney is describing is a communist. If you find it "hard to tell" if what Romney is saying is true or not, but you "would guess" that it's not, you're not really throwing your lot in with the sane.
So, if we can get back to reality, the point of this thread is that Mitt Romney will say just about anything to hold high public office, and to a degree that eclipses anyone else in a profession that's known for saying just about anything to hold high public office. This quote is a prime example of saying something he has said that he knows is not true, and that's it's quite a smear, but he lacks the requisite amount of shame to not say it.
Additionally, pointing out that there also exist other ambitious politicians who have shift their positions, and that I may have voted for them, is irrelevant. The point was never that nobody else does this; it was that Romney does it more than anyone else ever has, and by a wide margin.
-
That's not what "poisoning the well" is. You should really familiarize yourself with some of those concepts.
Oh come on.
" Steve is an idiot. Steve is ignorant. Steve uses propaganda techniques. Therefore whatever steve says is suspect."
And of course taxes on the rich are used for programs. Nobody ever said that's all they're used for.
WSS
Oh come on.
" Steve is an idiot. Steve is ignorant. Steve uses propaganda techniques. Therefore whatever steve says is suspect."
And of course taxes on the rich are used for programs. Nobody ever said that's all they're used for.
WSS
Again, that's not what "poisoning the well" is. (Also not an accurate representation of anything that happened in this thread.)
-
You do love absolute don't you?
Like I said yes I believe the president wants to close the gap between the top and the bottom.
and no I don't suppose the president thinks that he can make everyone 100 percent equal.
I don't see what's so outrageous or unclear.
WSS
-
You do love absolute don't you?
Like I said yes I believe the president wants to close the gap between the top and the bottom.
and no I don't suppose the president thinks that he can make everyone 100 percent equal.
I don't see what's so outrageous or unclear.
WSS
You do love absolute don't you?
Like I said yes I believe the president wants to close the gap between the top and the bottom.
and no I don't suppose the president thinks that he can make everyone 100 percent equal.
I don't see what's so outrageous or unclear.
WSS
Because you're still talking about something else, and trying to have a different conversation. You can't help yourself.
The president doesn't want to make everyone 100% equal. He obviously doesn't believe that. (Does anyone in American politics? I can't think of anyone.) So, for Mitt Romney to suggest that he does believe that - without a shred of evidence in his favor - when I'm quite certain even Mitt Romney doesn't believe that Obama believes that, makes Mitt Romney something far less than honest.
And again, this really this has nothing to do with income inequality. This has to do with what Romney alleged: that the President doesn't believe in the most basic tenets of the American system.
It's just horseshit. But complete horseshit sells with much of the base of the Republican Party, which is why Romney is saying it. To me, that, as well as his many political incarnations, show a real contempt for the people he's trying to represent. He obviously thinks they're very easily fooled, and sets about every day trying to fool them into believing things he knows aren't true. I don't think that's a particularly desirable quality in a candidate.
But he's still better than Newt Gingrich.
-
No need to question the quote, Heck, because I take its truth and accuracy at face value.
So, Romney did say it.
But, my question is does he say it?
-
I'm not following you. What do you mean?
-
I'm not following you. What do you mean?
I'm not following you. What do you mean?
Did he say this once or does he make a habit of saying it?
Sometimes people misspeak and for those who always seem to have a microphone on them, their misspeaks are documented.
As an example, Obama said there were 57 States in the United States. Maybe a bad example (and not meant to inflame), but I give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually knows there are 50 States, not 57.
However, he said it.
Did Romney misspeak? Was he called out on the statement and did he say he misspoke, denied he said it, brushed it aside, claimed it was his opinion, etc.
-
Heck, this is a good example of your over zealous desire to defend the president against any perceived slight.
You accused me of changing the goal post.
That's exactly what you have done by adding words to the statements that aren't there.
By adding an absolute ( every or all or in this case 100 percent) you can easily make any statement untrue.
Of course noone with any sense actually proposes making every american 100 percent equal.
And if your honest noone used the term 100 percent. Just you.
You certainly would not agree with someone who claims that the president is against americans being equal would you? Unless, of course, you changed the subject and moved the goalposts by Using the term 100 percent.
I have no doubt you can understand that though I don't expect you to admit it.
WSS
-
I'm not following you. What do you mean?
Did he say this once or does he make a habit of saying it?
Sometimes people misspeak and for those who always seem to have a microphone on them, their misspeaks are documented.
As an example, Obama said there were 57 States in the United States. Maybe a bad example (and not meant to inflame), but I give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually knows there are 50 States, not 57.
However, he said it.
Did Romney misspeak? Was he called out on the statement and did he say he misspoke, denied he said it, brushed it aside, claimed it was his opinion, etc.
Did he say this once or does he make a habit of saying it?
Sometimes people misspeak and for those who always seem to have a microphone on them, their misspeaks are documented.
As an example, Obama said there were 57 States in the United States. Maybe a bad example (and not meant to inflame), but I give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually knows there are 50 States, not 57.
However, he said it.
Did Romney misspeak? Was he called out on the statement and did he say he misspoke, denied he said it, brushed it aside, claimed it was his opinion, etc.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
This would be an extremely charitable excuse for what Romney said. It wasn't a slip of the tongue. It was a full paragraph. It's a theme of his attacks on Obama - that he doesn't "believe in America" like Romney does. So no, there's zero chance he slipped up here. Go back up and read the full quote. He's saying Obama wants the government to equalize your pay and benefits no matter what you contribute to society or how hard you work. He says "equal outcomes" and then he explains what he means by it.
And hey, once he locks up South Carolina, which already seems like it's in his column, he'll start moderating for the general election, and this type of stuff will disappear. Because he'll say anything.
PS - I really wish Obama hadn't had his "57 states" slip. The number of times Republicans trot that out as proof of whatever they happen to think it's proof of is pretty pathetic.
-
Heck, this is a good example of your over zealous desire to defend the president against any perceived slight.
You accused me of changing the goal post.
That's exactly what you have done by adding words to the statements that aren't there.
By adding an absolute ( every or all or in this case 100 percent) you can easily make any statement untrue.
Of course noone with any sense actually proposes making every american 100 percent equal.
And if your honest noone used the term 100 percent. Just you.
You certainly would not agree with someone who claims that the president is against americans being equal would you? Unless, of course, you changed the subject and moved the goalposts by Using the term 100 percent.
I have no doubt you can understand that though I don't expect you to admit it.
WSS
Heck, this is a good example of your over zealous desire to defend the president against any perceived slight.
You accused me of changing the goal post.
That's exactly what you have done by adding words to the statements that aren't there.
By adding an absolute ( every or all or in this case 100 percent) you can easily make any statement untrue.
Of course noone with any sense actually proposes making every american 100 percent equal.
And if your honest noone used the term 100 percent. Just you.
You certainly would not agree with someone who claims that the president is against americans being equal would you? Unless, of course, you changed the subject and moved the goalposts by Using the term 100 percent.
I have no doubt you can understand that though I don't expect you to admit it.
WSS
Are you serious? So Romney can say "equal outcomes", which means what it says, and is historically associated with communism, flat out explains what he means by it, and I have to pretend he doesn't really mean it because no one would be that stupid? Good God.
What reason do you think Romney is saying it - because you can interpret raising the top rates back to where they were in the 90s, which is far lower than historical averages, as a move toward equalizing outcomes? Do you even listen to yourself?
I can't believe you're taking this instance, where you're defending the Republican even though he's completely out-of-his-mind wrong, and then trying to use it as an example of me defending the president at any perceived slight.
Hey, Captain Wordsmith, it's not a "perceived slight." It's a real slight. It's a smear. And it's false.
You're the one defending the person who leveled a completely false charge. And then I get the partisanship lecture! You guys in here really are something.
-
Heck, this is a good example of your over zealous desire to defend the president against any perceived slight.
You accused me of changing the goal post.
That's exactly what you have done by adding words to the statements that aren't there.
By adding an absolute ( every or all or in this case 100 percent) you can easily make any statement untrue.
Of course noone with any sense actually proposes making every american 100 percent equal.
And if your honest noone used the term 100 percent. Just you.
You certainly would not agree with someone who claims that the president is against americans being equal would you? Unless, of course, you changed the subject and moved the goalposts by Using the term 100 percent.
I have no doubt you can understand that though I don't expect you to admit it.
WSS
Are you serious? So Romney can say "equal outcomes", which means what it says, and is historically associated with communism, flat out explains what he means by it, and I have to pretend he doesn't really mean it because no one would be that stupid? Good God.
What reason do you think Romney is saying it - because you can interpret raising the top rates back to where they were in the 90s, which is far lower than historical averages, as a move toward equalizing outcomes? Do you even listen to yourself?
I can't believe you're taking this instance, where you're defending the Republican even though he's completely out-of-his-mind wrong, and then trying to use it as an example of me defending the president at any perceived slight.
Hey, Captain Wordsmith, it's not a "perceived slight." It's a real slight. It's a smear. And it's false.
You're the one defending the person who leveled a completely false charge. And then I get the partisanship lecture! You guys in here really are something.
So Romney can say "equal outcomes", which means what it says, and is historically associated with communism, .
So is "leveling the playing field" Heck.
Hey, if you want to go on record opposing using the power of government to promote equality go ahead.
Maybe you can use the red circle and slash through an = mark for a bumper sticker.
WSS
-
So Romney can say "equal outcomes", which means what it says, and is historically associated with communism, .
So is "leveling the playing field" Heck.
Hey, if you want to go on record opposing using the power of government to promote equality go ahead.
Maybe you can use the red circle and slash through an = mark for a bumper sticker.
WSS
So is "leveling the playing field" Heck.
Hey, if you want to go on record opposing using the power of government to promote equality go ahead.
Maybe you can use the red circle and slash through an = mark for a bumper sticker.
WSS
NO!
"Leveling the playing field" refers to promoting equal opportunity! Are you serious? What's wrong with you? It means the attempt to have everyone playing on the same field, or being given the same starting point. As in, it'd be nice if some people didn't go to shitty schools and live in crime-ridden neighborhoods while others get to go to great public schools in safe neighborhoods - let's try and get everyone "on a level playing field" so that there are fewer disadvantages for some.
And then more definitional retreat. A HUGE retreat, in fact. Now we're talking about government efforts to promote equality somehow. Huh? "Equality" does not refer to "equal outcomes." It refers to legal equality, and equal access.
How much more wrong can you be in this thread? This is a truly awful performance.
-
Honestly, you think those bumper stickers with the yellow "equals" sign on a blue background are talking about equal outcomes?? You think that's what equality means? Jeez, no wonder you think the left is so dangerous. (Because you don't know what's going on.)
Thankfully, I'm here to help, Steve. That's a gay rights bumper sticker.
If I put a line through the "=" part, that'd be an anti-gay rights bumper sticker.
-
So is "leveling the playing field" Heck.
Hey, if you want to go on record opposing using the power of government to promote equality go ahead.
Maybe you can use the red circle and slash through an = mark for a bumper sticker.
WSS
NO!
"Leveling the playing field" refers to promoting equal opportunity! Are you serious? What's wrong with you? It means the attempt to have everyone playing on the same field, or being given the same starting point. As in, it'd be nice if some people didn't go to shitty schools and live in crime-ridden neighborhoods while others get to go to great public schools in safe neighborhoods - let's try and get everyone "on a level playing field" so that there are fewer disadvantages for some.
And then more definitional retreat. A HUGE retreat, in fact. Now we're talking about government efforts to promote equality somehow. Huh? "Equality" does not refer to "equal outcomes." It refers to legal equality, and equal access.
How much more wrong can you be in this thread? This is a truly awful performance.
NO!
"Leveling the playing field" refers to promoting equal opportunity! Are you serious? What's wrong with you? It means the attempt to have everyone playing on the same field, or being given the same starting point. As in, it'd be nice if some people didn't go to shitty schools and live in crime-ridden neighborhoods while others get to go to great public schools in safe neighborhoods - let's try and get everyone "on a level playing field" so that there are fewer disadvantages for some.
And then more definitional retreat. A HUGE retreat, in fact. Now we're talking about government efforts to promote equality somehow. Huh? "Equality" does not refer to "equal outcomes." It refers to legal equality, and equal access.
How much more wrong can you be in this thread? This is a truly awful performance.
Heck, just making things up doesn't make them true.
I know that might be what you wish were the case but it's really not.
I realize you might be embarrassed by the fact that your party has co opted the occupied wall street message.
But this 1 verse is 99 percent bullshit is your campaign tactic.
When the government is used to put the clamps on 1 demographic to boost another it's not about equality. It's about outcome.
Then again you claim your against equality anyway so I don't see why you're so angry.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login