Romney
-
I can't find the quotes I wanted to reference but - truth be told - I was struck by your vitriol against Romney.
I have no love or hate for the guy but I must say he comes across as a decent human being. He does come across as 'presidential' and compares favorably against a number of his opponents.
Coming from a guy from Massachusetts, I have to wonder what Romney did to get your opinions 'over the top'. Clearly, I put no credibility behind anything Barney Frank says or does - his track record speaks for itself.
Brushing that aside, were you sympathetic to the, now, dismissed, Billy Bulger as President of the Massachusetts State University System?
Were you sympathetic to the crooks that lined their pockets and stole money from taxpayers RE:, "The Big Dig"?
Maybe the guy wants to be President and is aggressive to that end. How does that compare to Al Gore who believe he was destined to be President? Was not Gore guilty of SOME transgressions?
Worse than Finneran, the Felon who used to be Mass Speaker of the House?
Worse than John Kerry who, I believe, is Romney squared in terms of the charges you made.
If you believe ambition and politics don't blend, they you are living under a rock. I know you're not.
Any way, the sheer mean-spirited way you struck a guy like Romney really caught me off guard.
Are you simply gearing up for November and put, "Romney" in a placeholder to evaluate whichever candidate wins the nomination?
The dots don't connect.
Is Romney more hateful than Charly Rangle, for example, who - everybody knows extorted and practiced abuse of power - and still does? Is Romney worse than him?
-
I'll give you a hint: "R"
WSS
-
I really have no idea why my opinions of Big Dig fraud or Billy Bulger would have any bearing on how I feel about Mitt Romney. Do you imagine I liked Big Dig fraud? You're more all of over the map here than you were with your Tebow complaints.
The point about Romney is that there's no one that I (or just about anyone else who follows politics seriously) can recall who has done a complete about face on so many of the major issues of the day like Romney has, and it only depends on what office he was seeking and who he happened to be talking to at the time. He'll say anything to anyone, and has. He'll say things he knows aren't true, and then later say the opposite. He'll change his position in 24 hours. He simply lacks a strong core set of beliefs, because he desire to be president overrides them all.
If you want to believe that people running for office in their late 40s and 50s, like Romney, haven't really thought through the important issues, and a few years later can have a complete change of heart on things like abortion or Ronald Reagan's presidency or global warming and tax rates and health care (seriously, go down the list - he's hit them all) and it's not because he's a once-in-a-lifetime phony, but because he really changed his mind on everything and it all just happened to jibe with the ambitions of his political career, then you might as well stop following politics now because you're not nearly cynical enough.
All politicians have egos. All politicians craft their messages to fit the audience they're speaking to. But they're usually crafting the message to shape around a policy they believe in. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has shown the near complete lack of personal conviction that Mitt Romney has.
And if you want to pull that lazy "Oh, he's just a Republican, and that's why he's saying this" crap, go find the statements from Newt Gingrich, who just flat out called Romney "a liar." Go find what Mike Huckabee has said, or John McCain circa 2008, Lindsay Graham. Watch John Huntsman's attack ads, which are all about what a phony Romney is. Or read any host of conservative publications. They're all laughing at the same Romney, and for the same reason. Hell, they were openly mocking him on the stage during the 2008 debates. McCain especially. And what were they alleging? That Romney is a huge phony.
Look, you can watch it here:
The only partisan nonsense being peddled in here is that people who think Mitt Romney is a phony are just doing it because they're Democrats, so we can dismiss it. That's the real hacky shit, Steve. (Also an example of perhaps the most common logical fallacy, but I'm long past the point of imagining that would ever stop you.)
And when did I ever say Romney was a hateful person? I never did. I don't believe that at all. Here's something you probably don't know: people in my family are friends with the Romney family. I know dozens of people who know the Romneys well. I grew up in the same town as Romney and his sons. They're a wonderful family. (A little hokey for my tastes, but a wonderful family.) I applied to do some work for Romney's administration. I know people who worked in his administration when he was Governor of Massachusetts, including the best man at my wedding.
I also have posted about 5-6 times about how I really, really want Romney to be the Republican nominee, because in the event Obama loses I want a smart, competent man in the White House, and I believe Romney is a smart, competent man.
But he's also the biggest political phony of our lifetimes. Barney Frank's quote is right on the money.
You really are a touchy SOB, aren't you, John? Of all the crass and vile crap written on this board, you think I'm the mean-spirited one? Because I think Mitt Romney has taken both sides of just about every issue when it's served him politically? This isn't exactly news, John. And I'm hardly the only person who has this opinion. Everyone thinks this about Mitt Romney, because it's not all that hard to remember 2008, or 2004, when he was on the complete other side of what he's saying now.
And this, of course, is the main reason why his support is so tepid among Republicans. Because he's a hard man to support. No one knows which Romney they're supporting. Plus, he's either a really lousy panderer, or he has a real contempt for the Republican base that he's pandering to. And I think people can sense that. (Apparently not you two, but most can.) If he thinks you or Cal is angry about something, guess what he's going to say in front of you, whether he believes it or not?
For instance, I know Mitt Romney doesn't believe this: "Roosevelt believed that government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities. President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes."
I mean, really? That's a completely ludicrous thing to say, and even more ridiculous to believe, and he's too smart to think that. But he knows some people on this board want to hear it, and think it's true. So he says it - Obama is a communist. That's what he's saying there.
Because he'll say anything.
-
Bunker said:
the polls show that obama's only chance of getting reelected is if its against romney
This isn't true. Romney runs better against Obama than any of the others, and by a decent margin.
-
For instance, I know Mitt Romney doesn't believe this: "Roosevelt believed that government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities. President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes."
And what would be your particular beef with that statement?
( I'm just wondering if you were disagreement would be the same as mine.)
Also did you support John Kerry?
( Just for the record sure I think Mitt will say a lot of things to win an election. I don't think that's rare.)
WSS
-
Huh?? My beef with that statement is that it's 100% not true, and there's zero evidence to support a belief that Obama believes in having the government equalize outcomes. So, usually when you say something it should be, you know, true. Or at least kind of true.
Are we really going to have this discussion? You're that type of crank, too?
Oh, what's become of the Republican party...
-
In the future, can you let me know when you're just trying to be senselessly provocative, like with your "What's wrong with bestiality?" post, and when you're actually trying to be (un)serious.
-
Huh?? My beef with that statement is that it's 100% not true, and there's zero evidence to support a belief that Obama believes in having the government equalize outcomes. So, usually when you say something it should be, you know, true. Or at least kind of true.
Are we really going to have this discussion? You're that type of crank, too?
Oh, what's become of the Republican party...
Huh?? My beef with that statement is that it's 100% not true, and there's zero evidence to support a belief that Obama believes in having the government equalize outcomes. So, usually when you say something it should be, you know, true. Or at least kind of true.
Are we really going to have this discussion? You're that type of crank, too?
Oh, what's become of the Republican party...
Hard to tell, Heck.
I'm still a registered democrat.
So, you don't think that the president believes in higher taxes for wealthy people to provide for more benefits, education or programs for the poor for the purpose of raising their status in society?
Furthermore you and the president are against any kind of affirmative action or set asides for under represented societal groups?
You think that every citizen should be on his own to succeed or fail without benefits of government interference?
Please.
To some extent everybody wants to give the little guy a boost.
At any rate that social warfare seems to be the biggest log in the president campaign fire.
Us verses the 1 percent.
As for Roosevelt I cynically believe that socialism and war go hand in hand. But we don't need to go down that hole now.
WSS
-
Are you out of your mind? Are you out of your mind? I think you may have lost me forever. You think progressive taxation is proof of a belief in equal outcomes. You can't even see a patently, 100% false charge as false. You have to take the other side. And you're supposed to be the smart one. I suppose it was always relative.
In the meantime, go find out what the concept of "definitional retreat" means and understand how this might get really annoying after, I don't know, five years. This is all you know how to do.
Are you really this dense?
I had a feeling that when I typed out that Romney quote I was going to get someone in here who thought it was true. (Which is why Romney uses it.) I didn't think it'd be you.
-
Are you out of your mind? Are you out of your mind? I think you may have lost me forever. You think progressive taxation is proof of a belief in equal outcomes. You can't even see a patently, 100% false charge as false. You have to take the other side. And you're supposed to be the smart one. I suppose it was always relative.
In the meantime, go find out what the concept of "definitional retreat" means and understand how this might get really annoying after, I don't know, five years. This is all you know how to do.
Are you really this dense?
I had a feeling that when I typed out that Romney quote I was going to get someone in here who thought it was true. (Which is why Romney uses it.) I didn't think it'd be you.
Are you out of your mind? Are you out of your mind? I think you may have lost me forever. You think progressive taxation is proof of a belief in equal outcomes. You can't even see a patently, 100% false charge as false. You have to take the other side. And you're supposed to be the smart one. I suppose it was always relative.
In the meantime, go find out what the concept of "definitional retreat" means and understand how this might get really annoying after, I don't know, five years. This is all you know how to do.
Are you really this dense?
I had a feeling that when I typed out that Romney quote I was going to get someone in here who thought it was true. (Which is why Romney uses it.) I didn't think it'd be you.
You seem awfully worked up.
Why not take a deep breath and tell me what's so outrageous about that statement.
( Or are you just poisoning the well?)
WSS
-
Tell me if and why I'm wrong to think of outcome based education.
Maybe I've made an incorrect association.
WSS
-
Are you out of your mind? Are you out of your mind? I think you may have lost me forever. You think progressive taxation is proof of a belief in equal outcomes. You can't even see a patently, 100% false charge as false. You have to take the other side. And you're supposed to be the smart one. I suppose it was always relative.
In the meantime, go find out what the concept of "definitional retreat" means and understand how this might get really annoying after, I don't know, five years. This is all you know how to do.
Are you really this dense?
I had a feeling that when I typed out that Romney quote I was going to get someone in here who thought it was true. (Which is why Romney uses it.) I didn't think it'd be you.
You seem awfully worked up.
Why not take a deep breath and tell me what's so outrageous about that statement.
( Or are you just poisoning the well?)
WSS
You seem awfully worked up.
Why not take a deep breath and tell me what's so outrageous about that statement.
WSS
Because it's more of your stupid game. All you know how to do is move the goal posts. That's it. We're talking about a very specific allegation by Romney, which is clearly false. But instead of saying, "Romney is lying" or even "Romney is obviously way off there, but..." you start talking about something else. This is what you always do. So much that I can't tell if you even understand what we're talking about.
Do you believe that Obama believes that all Americans should end up making the same amount of money regardless of their efforts, education, or contributions? Do you believe that? Don't ask me about John Kerry, or start into a discussion about taxation.
“President Obama believes that government should create equal outcomes. In an entitlement society, everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort and willingness to take risk. That which is earned by some is redistributed to the others. And the only people who truly enjoy any real rewards are those who do the redistributing — the government.”
This is insane. And let's stop pretending that you're anything like a Democrat. It doesn't fool anyone.
-
And here's "definitional retreat" for you. Not that it will help. If you couldn't use this technique you'd be mute.
"The speaker avoids being refuted by stating a new position different from the one that had been the focus of the discussion. Sometimes he may even claim that the new position is the one that he held "all along." In any case, the new position is not refuted by the argument just given, so the speaker avoids the appearance of having been proven wrong. Such a move is not an argument (and therefore not a fallacy), but an attempt to re-frame the topic being argued about."
Are we talking about Romney's allegation? Nope. In one post, you've now moved us to talking about affirmative action, and programs for the poor.
-
Actually, heck, I did look it up.
The Kerry question was part of the different line of conversation just because you were so angry about Romney changing positions. I wondered if you were as upset with Kerry.
So I don't know if you were asking me if I believe that the president wants to raise the bottom and lower the top or not. I would suppose that he does. If you are asking me if I believe he wants everyone to be exactly the same, I would guess not.
Thanks for trying to poison the well.
WSS
-
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.
-
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?
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