Romney
-
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
-
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.
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.
Actually I'm just giving you ideas for your new anti equality campaign.
Good luck.
WSS
-
And honestly old friend, if you are this furious that Romney said something that kind of sort of seems like he was calling Obama something less than a capitalist this is going to be a tough election year for you.
Wait until the gloves come off.
WSS
-
God, this gets sadder by the hour. Now we're talking about Occupy Wall Street. And apparently what someone there said is now Obama's view. And you still don't seem to grasp the point about equality.
And then this:
"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."
You can't keep any of these terms straight. This is just a world salad. You're arguing with someone who doesn't exist, who thinks all people should make the same amount of money. It doesn't mean anything, or get us anywhere.
Stop digging.
-
If you want to go off on a tangent, try this: every time top end tax rates come up, you frame it as taking money from the rich to pay for programs for poor people.
Can you think of another, more obvious reason for increasing income taxes on top end earners? Can you think of any other reason?
-
If you want to go off on a tangent, try this: every time top end tax rates come up, you frame it as taking money from the rich to pay for programs for poor people.
Can you think of another, more obvious reason for increasing income taxes on top end earners? Can you think of any other reason?
If you want to go off on a tangent, try this: every time top end tax rates come up, you frame it as taking money from the rich to pay for programs for poor people.
Can you think of another, more obvious reason for increasing income taxes on top end earners? Can you think of any other reason?
Sure I can.
I'll try to stay away from those absolutes we were talking about.
And besides taxpayer funded programs there are various forms of affirmative action and set asides.
And I suppose I could even think of some of those things that weren't all that bad. There are probably even plenty of programs I can live with. It's a matter of degree I suppose. So there's really no need to go into hardcore denial mode.
WSS
-
You really are stuck in the 80s, aren't you? What do top end tax rate increases have to do with affirmative action programs?
Steve, try again: Can you think of another, more obvious reason for increasing income taxes on top end earners?
-
Plus it's a little cynical to assume that if you cut the top rated but leave the loopholes i place it's going to make anything any more fair. I mean go ahead raise it to 60 as long as I can deduct that money who cares
? We all know that top rate is just the poison pill you guys want republicans to swallow.
WSS
-
Contrary to what you think, some people think about these issues in a way other than, "Yeah, let's make the other side eat it!"
Because we're not 12.
You're still missing the point. But I'm getting tired of asking. There's no there here.
Hint: we spend a lot more than we take in, and it's about to get a lot worse.
-
Contrary to what you think, some people think about these issues in a way other than, "Yeah, let's make the other side eat it!"
Because we're not 12.
You're still missing the point. But I'm getting tired of asking. There's no there here.
Hint: we spend a lot more than we take in, and it's about to get a lot worse.
Contrary to what you think, some people think about these issues in a way other than, "Yeah, let's make the other side eat it!"
Because we're not 12 In Congress.
Fixed that for you.
-
You really are stuck in the 80s, aren't you? What do top end tax rate increases have to do with affirmative action programs?
Steve, try again: Can you think of another, more obvious reason for increasing income taxes on top end earners?
You really are stuck in the 80s, aren't you? What do top end tax rate increases have to do with affirmative action programs?
Steve, try again: Can you think of another, more obvious reason for increasing income taxes on top end earners?
Well I know that some believe that it will increase much needed revenue. Others believe that the drag on the economy caused by those higher taxes will be a drag on the system aren't worth it.
But here we are talking about outcome based social engineering and making everyone more equal.
That's your campaign strategy 1 versus 99. I think it's stupid and no we are not 12. What I say about the top rated is that it's not so important if there are enough loopholes to get around paying that number.
But that's a completely different issue then trying to make americans equal.
WSS
-
God, this gets sadder by the hour. Now we're talking about Occupy Wall Street. And apparently what someone there said is now Obama's view. And you still don't seem to grasp the point about equality.
And then this:
"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."
You can't keep any of these terms straight. This is just a world salad. You're arguing with someone who doesn't exist, who thinks all people should make the same amount of money. It doesn't mean anything, or get us anywhere.
Stop digging.
God, this gets sadder by the hour. Now we're talking about Occupy Wall Street. And apparently what someone there said is now Obama's view. And you still don't seem to grasp the point about equality.
And then this:
"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."
You can't keep any of these terms straight. This is just a world salad. You're arguing with someone who doesn't exist, who thinks all people should make the same amount of money. It doesn't mean anything, or get us anywhere.
Stop digging.
Heck I'm completely consistent.Your onkly defense is changing the subject denial and som epetty name calling.
Tell you what,. You give me examples of how to establish "equality."
Then you can tell me exactly why it doesn't involve some type of Robin Hood ism.
WSS
-
Steve, again, when people speak of equality, they're talking about legal equality. Most of that has been achieved already.
You want to know what I would do to promote equality? Try and get states to recognize gay marriage.
Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was another positive step for equality.
As for economic equality, I don't believe in that, and nobody else does either. What you're trying to do is create equal opportunity, which is mostly about public safety, public health, public education, and access to higher education.
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