- 5,132
- 843
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2003
![220154_o.gif[IMG]](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fgifsoup.com%2Fwebroot%2Fanimatedgifs%2F220154_o.gif%5BIMG%5D&hash=812faeba471c3744fe4f2fe928990be4)
- 35,006
- 16,905
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2005
I gotta get my political game up
You guys sound like a bunch of rocket scientists right now
- 9,141
- 1,797
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
and this is where the republican ignorance stems from, word to some people in this thread. also this ridiculous issue was brought up months ago when fat man newt called obama the food stamp president. REALLY? the food stamp president? this bullsht was used as an argument against raising taxes on the rich...and there are a lot of people in this country who clear the quarter milli mark. the argument alone is evidence enough that republicans really don't a give a damn about the low-avg income bracket. its beyond me how this isn't obvious to more tho :x
conservative rhetoric nowadays is less constructive argument and more flat out stupid these days and idk how anyone can get down with them, honestly, and it makes for a broken Washington.and romney is just a yes man who will say anything to be president, even going against his own personal beliefs. everytime i watch the news, this dude is caught saying the direct opposite of what he voted for/did/said in the past. and don't even try to say obama does the same at least on this level. romney is really terrible and you'd think the gap between obama and romney in the polls would be bigger
- 9,253
- 3,007
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2005
But he didn't say any of that. He said he's not worried about them, because he will not get there vote. An his numbers are skewed but we all know there is a percentage of people that are dependent on the government and have no incentive to get off. It may not good politics to acknowledge this but we can't trick ourselves into thinking that it's not true. The only thing wrong that he did was linking the 47% that don't pay income tax and those that are complacent on government assistance.
- 317
- 16
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2006
so some of what he says is right and wrong. he's very incomplete and saying whatever to make his argument. pretty much what both of em does
- 36,992
- 12,295
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
“Who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them.”
“And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49. He starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax.”
“And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care of their lives.”
Don't be naive... He called 47-49% of the country, people who do not want to work for anything..
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
Why is this even news? People who pay attention to politics know that Republicans think this way.
Why is this news and not why the White House, DOJ, the FBI, and the State Department are all telling different stories of the death the Ambassador?
Why is this news and not why the White House, DOJ, the FBI, and the State Department are all telling different stories of the death the Ambassador?
- 5,686
- 529
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
Meanwhile the President is at the White House like this:
Romney was just yucking it up with his other fellow out of touch millionaire pals who don't give a damn about anybody else who isn't in their tax bracket....maybe this is a revelation to him, but as President you govern and represent ALL Americans. You don't get to just dismiss 47% of people and say, oh well, they didn't support me anyways Obama ain't perfect but I can't have this dude Romney and his VP Ryan in the White House, seriously. :x Disrespected College students, seniors, war veterans, single parents, and those below the poverty line...I don't even know what to say
Romney was just yucking it up with his other fellow out of touch millionaire pals who don't give a damn about anybody else who isn't in their tax bracket....maybe this is a revelation to him, but as President you govern and represent ALL Americans. You don't get to just dismiss 47% of people and say, oh well, they didn't support me anyways
Obama ain't perfect but I can't have this dude Romney and his VP Ryan in the White House, seriously. :x Disrespected College students, seniors, war veterans, single parents, and those below the poverty line...I don't even know what to say
- 5,132
- 843
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2003
You serious? A presidential candidate called half the country entitled leeches on camera, if that's not news then what is?
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Word? Post them in the other thread. Let me read this.
On the other hand, Mitt is tossing up these underhanded softballs in yankee stadium though.
Last edited:
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
[if IE]><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="640" height="390" /><![endif]
[/quote]
Hes entrenching with the far right so that they all come out for him.
Just an [size=7][b][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window]overton window[/url][/b][/size] coming to fruition (don't read into what glenn beck says. I'm disgusted he named his book after a political theory concept). Obama has to move to the middle and mitt just moves to the right.
[size=5][b]Take note of that press conference. Mitt still has no answers. Merely criticism. [/b][/size]
Last edited:
- 9,253
- 3,007
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2005
Not naive at all sir. I'm aware of the political ramifications of his statements. But to an informed person, as you seem to be. The only thing he is guilty of is linking those two groups of people. It's not 47% but they do exist and the President will automatically have there votes.
- 5,686
- 529
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
Supposedly the people who released this have more videos coming out this morning I think....if so I wonder what else he says.
and now today Romney is gonna start allowing video cameras into his fundraising events...dude knows he screwed up big time, but if he'd be dumb enough to make remarks like this again then it'd be a definite wrap, if its not already
and now today Romney is gonna start allowing video cameras into his fundraising events...dude knows he screwed up big time, but if he'd be dumb enough to make remarks like this again then it'd be a definite wrap, if its not already
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Say what you want but this is just what we call dog whistle politics popularized by lee atwater.and this is where the republican ignorance stems from, word to some people in this thread. also this ridiculous issue was brought up months ago when fat man newt called obama the food stamp president. REALLY? the food stamp president? this bullsht was used as an argument against raising taxes on the rich...and there are a lot of people in this country who clear the quarter milli mark. the argument alone is evidence enough that republicans really don't a give a damn about the low-avg income bracket. its beyond me how this isn't obvious to more tho
conservative rhetoric nowadays is less constructive argument and more flat out stupid these days and idk how anyone can get down with them, honestly, and it makes for a broken Washington.
and romney is just a yes man who will say anything to be president, even going against his own personal beliefs. everytime i watch the news, this dude is caught saying the direct opposite of what he voted for/did/said in the past. and don't even try to say obama does the same at least on this level. romney is really terrible and you'd think the gap between obama and romney in the polls would be bigger
They're baiting people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968, you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."[sup][23][/sup][sup][24] - Lee Atwater[/sup]
[h2]Paul Ryan and the GOP's New "Dog Whistle Politics"[/h2]Wednesday, 29 August 2012 08:58[color= rgb(156, 22, 46)]By Joan Walsh, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | Book Excerpt[/color]
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), Mitt Romney's running mate, at his campaign event at the American Helicopter Museum & Education Center in West Chester, Pennsylvania, August 21, 2012. (Photo: Eric Thayer / The New York Times)Joan Walsh, editor-at-large for Salon.com, and an MSNBC political analyst, pens an enlightening personal journey through the prevailing "us" vs. "them" narrative of US politics. Who can not empathize with Walsh's predicament? "One party, my own, has lost its spine," she observes, "the other lost its mind." Click here to get your copy of "What's The Matter With White People" (Hardcover) and support Truthout's mission.
I have a problem with liberals who dismiss the white working class as hopelessly Republican and racist, because they ignore something interesting: in 2008, our first black president got a higher share of their votes than any recent white Democrat in this generation, including John Kerry, Al Gore, and even Bill Clinton. A New York Times analysis found that Obama won 46 percent of whites without a college degree who earned between $30,000 and $75,000 a year, to Bill Clinton's 44 percent. He kept John McCain's edge with that group to 6 points, when George W. Bush won them by 35 points against John Kerry four years earlier. And in some swing states, such as Ohio, the "Obama coalition" ultimately included the white working class.
Yes, many of those voters raced back into the Republican column in 2010, when the GOP ran up a 30-point edge in midterm congressional races, and for much of 2011, Democrats talked about a strategy to keep the White House without winning Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, key swing states he took in 2008. But I'm not sure why we'd conclude that those voters' problem was mainly racial, or that they had run back to the GOP for good. Had they shaken off their racism in 2008, only to have it return like a stubborn virus in 2010? Did the president become more black? What if their reaction derived from frustration with Democratic leaders who hadn't pursued an economic turnaround agenda aggressively enough, at a time when unemployment stood at more than 10 percent—and almost 15 percent for whites without a college degree?
The GOP's new dog-whistle politics, trashing white people in coded language once reserved for blacks, opens new opportunities for Democrats—if they can help those white people translate the new GOP rhetoric. In a 2012 debate, then-front-runner Rick Santorum approvingly quoted from Charles Murray's Coming Apart, hoping his listeners wouldn't know that this time Murray was scolding white people. After Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke supported President Obama's insurance regulations mandating cost-free contraception, conservatives began trashing the young white law student as a "welfare queen" wanting birth control on the taxpayers' dime.
But "dependent voters" aren't just a problem to the GOP because they eat up our tax dollars. "Republican supporters will continue to decrease every year as more Americans become dependent on the government," Tea Party Senator Jim DeMint wrote in his shrill 2012 book Now or Never. "Dependent voters will naturally elect even big-government progressives who will continue to smother economic growth and spend America deeper into debt. The 2012 election may be the last opportunity for Republicans." Wisconsin conservative representative Paul Ryan, he of the "Ryan Plan" to abolish Medicare, divides the electorate into "makers" and "takers."
This is coded language meant to whip the GOP base into a frenzy of fear and resentment. Because for the past forty years, we've all known who the "takers" were, or were supposed to be, anyway: the welfare queens, the urban rioters, the students, the slackers, the various people the Democrats sided with in the 1960s, most of them, in the partisan story-telling, African American.
Yet today, many white folks who are voting Republican don't seem to know one important detail: they are, in fact, the "takers." We saw white Tea Party supporters demanding the government stay out of their Medicare. We know that much of the GOP's aging white base relies on Social Security. But the contradiction runs even deeper than that: Dartmouth political scientist Dean Lacy found the more a county receives in federal government payments, the more likely it is to vote Republican. The New York Times referred to Lacy's research in its understated but still rather shocking feature "Even Critics of Safety Net Depend On It." As Lacy elaborated to a WNYC reporter: "The counties that are getting more in crop subsidies, housing assistance, and Medicaid payments are a lot more Republican. So it really is about that catch-all category that you might call welfare." Yet because their local congressmen and women tend to defend that type of "welfare," Lacy says, "they have the luxury of voting on social issues knowing that these federal spending programs will be kept in place."
Except those programs won't be kept in place by the new GOP, which is committed to trashing even the economic supports it used to (however hypocritically) defend.
The Democratic Party should even have a chance to make inroads with white seniors in 2012 if they're able to broadcast the extremist Republican crusade even against programs that protect them. As long as they give up on the delusion of a "grand bargain," trading Social Security and Medicare cuts for revenue increases, that the president and some of his party allies floated during the debt-ceiling debacle of 2011.
As long as they make it clear they're Democrats, that is.
Reprinted by permission of the publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., from What’s The Matter with White People, by Joan Walsh. Copyright [emoji]169[/emoji] 2012 by Joan Walsh.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.
2- font size
I have a problem with liberals who dismiss the white working class as hopelessly Republican and racist, because they ignore something interesting: in 2008, our first black president got a higher share of their votes than any recent white Democrat in this generation, including John Kerry, Al Gore, and even Bill Clinton. A New York Times analysis found that Obama won 46 percent of whites without a college degree who earned between $30,000 and $75,000 a year, to Bill Clinton's 44 percent. He kept John McCain's edge with that group to 6 points, when George W. Bush won them by 35 points against John Kerry four years earlier. And in some swing states, such as Ohio, the "Obama coalition" ultimately included the white working class.
Yes, many of those voters raced back into the Republican column in 2010, when the GOP ran up a 30-point edge in midterm congressional races, and for much of 2011, Democrats talked about a strategy to keep the White House without winning Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, key swing states he took in 2008. But I'm not sure why we'd conclude that those voters' problem was mainly racial, or that they had run back to the GOP for good. Had they shaken off their racism in 2008, only to have it return like a stubborn virus in 2010? Did the president become more black? What if their reaction derived from frustration with Democratic leaders who hadn't pursued an economic turnaround agenda aggressively enough, at a time when unemployment stood at more than 10 percent—and almost 15 percent for whites without a college degree?
The GOP's new dog-whistle politics, trashing white people in coded language once reserved for blacks, opens new opportunities for Democrats—if they can help those white people translate the new GOP rhetoric. In a 2012 debate, then-front-runner Rick Santorum approvingly quoted from Charles Murray's Coming Apart, hoping his listeners wouldn't know that this time Murray was scolding white people. After Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke supported President Obama's insurance regulations mandating cost-free contraception, conservatives began trashing the young white law student as a "welfare queen" wanting birth control on the taxpayers' dime.
But "dependent voters" aren't just a problem to the GOP because they eat up our tax dollars. "Republican supporters will continue to decrease every year as more Americans become dependent on the government," Tea Party Senator Jim DeMint wrote in his shrill 2012 book Now or Never. "Dependent voters will naturally elect even big-government progressives who will continue to smother economic growth and spend America deeper into debt. The 2012 election may be the last opportunity for Republicans." Wisconsin conservative representative Paul Ryan, he of the "Ryan Plan" to abolish Medicare, divides the electorate into "makers" and "takers."
This is coded language meant to whip the GOP base into a frenzy of fear and resentment. Because for the past forty years, we've all known who the "takers" were, or were supposed to be, anyway: the welfare queens, the urban rioters, the students, the slackers, the various people the Democrats sided with in the 1960s, most of them, in the partisan story-telling, African American.
Yet today, many white folks who are voting Republican don't seem to know one important detail: they are, in fact, the "takers." We saw white Tea Party supporters demanding the government stay out of their Medicare. We know that much of the GOP's aging white base relies on Social Security. But the contradiction runs even deeper than that: Dartmouth political scientist Dean Lacy found the more a county receives in federal government payments, the more likely it is to vote Republican. The New York Times referred to Lacy's research in its understated but still rather shocking feature "Even Critics of Safety Net Depend On It." As Lacy elaborated to a WNYC reporter: "The counties that are getting more in crop subsidies, housing assistance, and Medicaid payments are a lot more Republican. So it really is about that catch-all category that you might call welfare." Yet because their local congressmen and women tend to defend that type of "welfare," Lacy says, "they have the luxury of voting on social issues knowing that these federal spending programs will be kept in place."
Except those programs won't be kept in place by the new GOP, which is committed to trashing even the economic supports it used to (however hypocritically) defend.
The Democratic Party should even have a chance to make inroads with white seniors in 2012 if they're able to broadcast the extremist Republican crusade even against programs that protect them. As long as they give up on the delusion of a "grand bargain," trading Social Security and Medicare cuts for revenue increases, that the president and some of his party allies floated during the debt-ceiling debacle of 2011.
As long as they make it clear they're Democrats, that is.
Reprinted by permission of the publisher, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., from What’s The Matter with White People, by Joan Walsh. Copyright [emoji]169[/emoji] 2012 by Joan Walsh.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.
Last edited:
- 2,950
- 47
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
Sorry im late but what ever came about of Ron Paul?? 
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
Word? Post them in the other thread. Let me read this.
On the other hand, Mitt is tossing up these underhanded softballs in yankee stadium though.
Pentagon and State Dept say the attack was coordinated, White House says it wasn't. State Department is deferring people to the DOJ, who won't release a statement.
Was it a secret tht he thinks this?
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
He got arrogant and chose not to run as an independent.Sorry im late but what ever came about of Ron Paul??
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
I heard there was a mixup on the day it was announced, what about since then?Word? Post them in the other thread. Let me read this.
On the other hand, Mitt is tossing up these underhanded softballs in yankee stadium though.
Pentagon and State Dept say the attack was coordinated, White House says it wasn't. State Department is deferring people to the DOJ, who won't release a statement.
Thats why they were saying obama was apologizing to muslims when he was just coaxing the situation and it was really his diplomats that were trying to appease people so they could remove tension.
Or is there something more recent?
Last edited:
jhawk826
Banned
- 3,001
- 621
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
Report: Jimmy Carter’s grandson helped leak Romney fundraiser video
Posted by Sean Sullivan on September 18, 2012 at 7:54 am
Smaller Text Larger Text Text Size
Print
Reprints
Share:
More »
Former president Jimmy Carter’s grandson helped leak video of Mitt Romney at a private fundraiser to Mother Jones Magazine, New York Magazine’s Daily Intel blog reports.
James Carter IV helped connect Mother Jones reporter David Corn with video of Romney at a fundraiser saying, among other things, that it is not his “job” to win over the 47 percent of voters committed to President Obama, because they are “dependent on government” and he will “never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Carter IV, whose Twitter bio says he is an opposition researcher, told Daily Intel he first noticed online a part of the video in which Romney discusses Chinese labor. Then, as additional footage was added, he tracked down the originating source of the footage and put that person in touch with Corn.
“Any time that you can find a clip that strengthens the narrative already established, that’s what becomes a big deal,” Carter told Daily Intel. “I’ve been trying to get paid for this but it hasn’t worked out yet. This might help.”
Posted by Sean Sullivan on September 18, 2012 at 7:54 am
Smaller Text Larger Text Text Size
Reprints
Share:
More »
Former president Jimmy Carter’s grandson helped leak video of Mitt Romney at a private fundraiser to Mother Jones Magazine, New York Magazine’s Daily Intel blog reports.
James Carter IV helped connect Mother Jones reporter David Corn with video of Romney at a fundraiser saying, among other things, that it is not his “job” to win over the 47 percent of voters committed to President Obama, because they are “dependent on government” and he will “never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Carter IV, whose Twitter bio says he is an opposition researcher, told Daily Intel he first noticed online a part of the video in which Romney discusses Chinese labor. Then, as additional footage was added, he tracked down the originating source of the footage and put that person in touch with Corn.
“Any time that you can find a clip that strengthens the narrative already established, that’s what becomes a big deal,” Carter told Daily Intel. “I’ve been trying to get paid for this but it hasn’t worked out yet. This might help.”
- 35,006
- 16,905
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2005
I ain't eem mad
- 22,895
- 26,767
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
You obviously give the general public too much credit for recognizing the obvious
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
futuremd
Banned
- 6,448
- 1,433
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Hey don't hate the player, hate the game.
- 9,961
- 11,313
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2005
A huge blowback?
C'mon man forreal? This comment occurred during the primaries in April, Obama wasn't even the democratic nominee yet. One the other hand Romney's comment is occurring like 6 weeks before election date.
On top of that Obama's comment wasn't about damn near half the country. In so many words Romney basically just said 47% of the country are lazy freeloaders, and the states with the highest concentration of said people normally vote Republican. Dude is a absolute idiot for his comment.
- 25,831
- 15,061
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
Romney's supposed greatest strength (business record) should be a liability. Bloomberg Businessweek said it best, Washington needs to act against the very executives like Romney to create a tax code that imposes a much heavier share of the burden on people like him. The Carried Interest Provision which allows execs like Romney to treat their income as capital gains taxed at a 15% rate rather than income usually taxed at the top rate of 35%.
The dems passed such legislation 3 or 4 times but it never got further. You could argue it was republicans that kept it from going further but other dems were in on it too since Wall St is a major source of campaign contributions...
Just thought I'd put it out there...
The dems passed such legislation 3 or 4 times but it never got further. You could argue it was republicans that kept it from going further but other dems were in on it too since Wall St is a major source of campaign contributions...
Just thought I'd put it out there...
