Gary M Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 let's not forget this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 So let me get this straight: Romney points out, accurately, that we have a "victim" class in this country that relies on the government. And said class is victimized by that observation, in that their not victims. While Obama's campaign is "disgusted" at Romney's contempt at "half" the country, conveniently ignoring Obama's stated and obvious contempt for half the country. And after hearing all that on the news, the next three stories I heard were all about the government taking care of "victims". This election season is surreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 So let me get this straight: Romney points out, accurately, that we have a "victim" class in this country that relies on the government. And said class is victimized by that observation, in that their not victims. While Obama's campaign is "disgusted" at Romney's contempt at "half" the country, conveniently ignoring Obama's stated and obvious contempt for half the country. And after hearing all that on the news, the next three stories I heard were all about the government taking care of "victims". This election season is surreal. Add to that Romney is now in backpedal mode instead of owning it. Good luck finding anyone with a pair in this election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Keep in mind this is the same doucher that said middle income was 200-250k. It's unbelievable how out of touch this silver spooner is. Is this the best candidate the Republicans got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Keep in mind this is the same doucher that said middle income was 200-250k. It's unbelievable how out of touch this silver spooner is. Is this the best candidate the Republicans got? Link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Keep in mind this is the same doucher that said middle income was 200-250k. It's unbelievable how out of touch this silver spooner is. Is this the best candidate the Republicans got? Sorry BS (somewhat appropriate...lol) You are falling for spin. Mr Romney referred to taxpayers who earn 200 -250k, and less. Those on the left, conveniently trimmed that off the quote, and you, along with most in the "press release" media went right along. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Was Romney going to ever reach them? I guess not now. The large majority of the lower rungs of the economic ladder aren't even likely voters, much less registered voters, and that's a good thing. Those among us who are the least intelligent, least motivated, and least financially savy have no business interjecting themselves into public policy. Equality is a sham, none of us are equal; and if some are better others are worse, which means their ideas are worse. Worse ideas have no place at the table. Not excersing a right that Patriots died to defend is not a good thing, not matter how you deal it out. Its sad that less than 50% of adult eligibles vote.... So let me get this straight: Romney points out, accurately, that we have a "victim" class in this country that relies on the government. And said class is victimized by that observation, in that their not victims. While Obama's campaign is "disgusted" at Romney's contempt at "half" the country, conveniently ignoring Obama's stated and obvious contempt for half the country. And after hearing all that on the news, the next three stories I heard were all about the government taking care of "victims". This election season is surreal. Romney's job is to convince those people that being dependent on the Government is not a good thing, that it perpetuaties their situation... will he succeed in all cases, most likely not. The problem with this statement by Romney is it reveals the comtempt he and his party have for the poor and struggling..... He had a option, whether it be to crap all over people who are down, out and scared and see the Government as a "fix", or reach these people and persuade that that "opportunity", not Government assistance is the path to prosperity... unfortunately he made his choice and it will cost him dearly. Whether Mitt Romney likes it or not, those loser and scumbag victims are his consistuentcy in this representative Democracy... people give Barrry **** about lack of leadership, well Mitt is a crater on this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Whether Mitt Romney likes it or not, those loser and scumbag victims are his consistuentcy in this representative Democracy... No, they're not. People elect congressmen for representation. Not Presidents. Reasons #7346 this country is !@#$ed: people don't understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) If A Tree Falls In The Forest And Declares The Race Is Over... by Hugh Hewitt After trying to invent a campaign-ending gaffe for Mitt Romney in Great Britain, and then trying to create a campaign-ending gaffe for Mitt Romney last Monday with his press conference on the Cairo embassy's statement, the massed forces of the MSM are now trying to fashion a campign-ending gaffe for Mitt Romney out of a video of a fundraiser, but doing so not once but twice, first with the 47% excerpt and now with the excerpt of Romney talking about the Palestinians. In all four instances Romney spoke the truth --London was shakey at the start of the games and it took some days to right the problems; the Cairo embasy statement was pure appeasement and wrong; 47% of the country is not paying income taxes and those folks are very unlikely to vote for Romney; and the Palestinians are not looking for real peace with Israel. From these rather obvious statements MSM has flooded the zone with declarations that the campaign is over. Timothy Noah at The New Republic and Josh Barro at Bloomberg are just two of the examples of people you have never heard of declaring the campaign to be over even though Romney retains his 2 point lead in Rasmussen and even though those who read TNR or Barro's columns number in the low hundreds. Because those hundreds talk to each other, they are convonced they have finally sunk the Romney battleship. The series of attempted bums' rushes directed at Romney has not moved the fundamentals of the race one bit, and even a dozen more won't. The country is living through a failed presidency. The nation is surrounded by crises, some of its own making others thrust upon it by the implacable hatred of pre-modern fury or the sweeping ambition of a rising China or a resurgent Russia. 23 million Americans can't find a job and the president is listless, clueless and wholly without a plan for the renewal of the American economy much less the American spirit. Candor from a candidate is wholly shocking to a fawning Manhattan-Beltway media elite grown accustomed to a remote, celebrity president who disdains their questions and whose every speech is laced with fable and feathery promises of far away places where the 47% go to the Olympics after peace is achievend with a two state solution and a second Cairo speech quiets the Salafist soul. It is embarassing to have such a media. Not one that covers "secret" videotapes. That's part of the beat and good for Romney to have to respond to. But a media that refuses, day after day, to report on the issues that are actually driving the vote, driving fear that grips most voters. With seven weeks to go Mitt Romney has command of the stage becaue the president won't enter on to it for fear of revealing --again-- his utter lack of a plan and his genuine contempt for the private sector. Edited September 18, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Keep in mind this is the same doucher that said middle income was 200-250k. It's unbelievable how out of touch this silver spooner is. Is this the best candidate the Republicans got? Link. during this interview GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income? MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 WOW, Romney was right...LOL http://drudgereport.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income? MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. Exactly. and for those of you cogent posters who didn't swallow the spin, you are correct that Mitt specifically chose 250,000, because thats the number that Mr. Obama kept referring to as "the Rich" when he was talking about the need for new taxes (But not on the middle class.....yeah, right...lol) . Edited September 18, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) WOW, Romney was right...LOL http://drudgereport.com/ Here's the link directly to the article rather then Drudge. Either way it looks like MR was pretty much spot on. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/the-data-behind-romneys-47-comments/ Edited September 18, 2012 by erynthered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) during this interview MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. Biggiescooby, would you like to retract your statement? Edited September 18, 2012 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 No, they're not. People elect congressmen for representation. Not Presidents. Reasons #7346 this country is !@#$ed: people don't understand that. then why do we vote in Presidential election? Who not let your representatives do it on your behalf... Like it or not, Romney and Obama represent all Americans.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Biggiescooby, would you like to retract your statement? Absolutely not going to retract Canadian. Households that bring in $200,000 per year are in the TOP 2.67% and $250,000 in the top 1.5%. The fact that Romney couldn't indentify that middle income is not that high shows how out of touch with reality he is. If you want to talk about median household income he'd need to be at $51,914. As a Canadian you probably were exposed to a higher caliber education especially in math. Would you say, given these facts that $200,000 to $250,000 household income is "middle income" eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 i don't see how anyone can see this as anything but negative for romney. there are certainly republican voters in this group who find themselves falling on hard times. and there are republican friends and relatives of people in the same situation. romney has effectively said as bush did, that these are not his people. he's not expecting anything from them and they shouldn't expect anything from him. i'm willing to bet there are some conservative christians in that group of "freeloaders". this won't lose them all but it will likely lose some of their votes. no way you can call this anything other than dumb. Absolutely not going to retract Canadian. Households that bring in $200,000 per year are in the TOP 2.67% and $250,000 in the top 1.5%. The fact that Romney couldn't indentify that middle income is not that high shows how out of touch with reality he is. If you want to talk about median household income he'd need to be at $51,914. As a Canadian you probably were exposed to a higher caliber education especially in math. Would you say, given these facts that $200,000 to $250,000 household income is "middle income" eh? these are the same numbers obama defines as middle class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Here's the link directly to the article rather then Drudge. Either way it looks like MR was pretty much spot on. http://blogs.wsj.com...ys-47-comments/ No biggie, but I was referring to Drudge's screaming headline of...GALLUP: OBAMA 47% ROMNEY 46% Not that WSJ article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Absolutely not going to retract Canadian. Households that bring in $200,000 per year are in the TOP 2.67% and $250,000 in the top 1.5%. The fact that Romney couldn't indentify that middle income is not that high shows how out of touch with reality he is. If you want to talk about median household income he'd need to be at $51,914. As a Canadian you probably were exposed to a higher caliber education especially in math. Would you say, given these facts that $200,000 to $250,000 household income is "middle income" eh? As far as I can tell, 250K is not high income depending on the region you live. I highly doubt 250K will get you very far (as a household) living in California/Boston/NYC for example. So saying that anything lower than 250K is middle income isn't inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Absolutely not going to retract Canadian. Households that bring in $200,000 per year are in the TOP 2.67% and $250,000 in the top 1.5%. The fact that Romney couldn't indentify that middle income is not that high shows how out of touch with reality he is. If you want to talk about median household income he'd need to be at $51,914. As a Canadian you probably were exposed to a higher caliber education especially in math. Would you say, given these facts that $200,000 to $250,000 household income is "middle income" eh? Would you consider upper middle income as middle income? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts