I didn't do my duty yesterday and I didn't view this thread with these videos. I wish I would have because I got jumped last night by a liberal...who claims he's not liberal...because Romney dismissed half the population and said he doesn't care about them. I couldn't set him straight because I hadn't seen the video. I will do it tonight.
He's merely talking about people that he cannot convince to vote for him no matter what.....which is the entitelment group. People that want government to provide a life for them for free. A house, a car, socialized medicine, welfare, etc.
Obama isn't campaigning in Kansas because he knows it's a lost cause. Does that mean he's dismissing us? No, it just means he can't get our votes so he's not even going to waste his time trying. Every candidate does that because they have limited resources.
That said, Obama has dismissed conservatives his entire Presidency and has ran his term specifically to cater to the entitlement class. Obama has practiced what he is accusing Romney of....dismissing large groups of people in his actual policies., not just the campaign.
Lol, yeah...them damn conservatives. Always trying to force socialized medicine down our throats and to redistribute wealth to the unproductive that don't want to work. Whatever you say, bla bla bla.
It might be liked there, but I don't want the federal government to have that much control over us. That's all we need....liberals trying to scare people every election. "The Republicans want to take away your healthcare and let you die". Obamacare is already driving the costs for insurance up, and many businesses will drop their employer based health insurance altogether. Politicians will mandate insurance companies to provide more and more crap for free in order to generate votes (does free birth control sound familiar?), and the cost will push up continuously. Obamacare will put private health insurance out of business by design. Libs want to force a single payer system. No way. Not happening if conservatives have anything to say about it.
I live in Massachusetts and while it is certainly known as a liberal state, it is by no means 80% Democratic. Even when Romney was governor, while Democrats were the majority, independents were growing fast so that they are now more than 50% of the electorate. See:http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/08/28/registration-figures-show-massachusetts-voters-continue-abandon-two-major-political-parties/p0zW7Snj9R07DK913P36kM/story.html. Remember that we did elect Scott Brown for senator, plus Republicans Bill Weld and Romney himself for governor.
By the way if you really wan to see what "socialized medicine" looks like, check out Great Britain's National Health Service. People grumble about it (they always do...), but no one has suggested abolishing it. Our equivalent might be something like "VA Healthcare system for all!". A less "socialistic" option is single payer or "Medicare for all". The mandate system leaves the current system virtually intact, adding only the requirement that everyone participate. It's by far the least intrusive method that still gets healthcare coverage for (nearly) everyone. It's worked here in Massachusetts (a few grumble, as it's hardly perfect), but it works for the vast majority of people and it's basically well liked.
Are you referring to the Heritage Foundation? They dropped the idea, and as far as I know no Republican in Congress ever proposed a mandate for health care. What Romney did in his state as Governor wasn't a national implementation. He had an 87% Democrat legislature and probably and 80% Democrat demographic for voters. I would assume the demand for it was very high. If we had an 80% Democrat demographic nationwide, we would probably already have a single payer system even if a Republican President was in office when it passed. Not easy to veto when the overwhelming majority of the public demands it, and you'd basically be forced to work with the Dems on getting it done.
Point is, socialized medicine is a liberal agenda, not a conservative one.
OK, it may not be conservative on the whole, but has many conservative aspects, like the mandate. It was designed and originally written by Republicans and first implemented by a Republican (Romney).
How do you figure? He was talking about people that have the entitlement mentality. The ones that believe government should provide our healthcare, a house, and pay our bills. Those people do not vote Republican because that's very opposite to what we believe. There are people getting government checks for SS, retirement from the military, or whatever, but he is not referring to them. He specifically pointed out who he was referring to, so you can't lump all people getting a check from the government within that group.
Regardless, he was only talking about convincing groups of people to vote for him. He's saying the entitlement group is a lost cause....and he's right. People that collect welfare or want socialized medicine will vote for Obama. He's just saying he can't convince them to vote for him. He never dismissed them as people and never said he would not care about them as President.
You might want to read or watch his quote again. He was referring to the entire 47%. Maybe he intended to say something else, but he didn't.
It was a mistake to use the 47% figure, but you have to dig up the numbers to nail him on it. It wasn't his intent and he was just making a point that there is a group of people that will vote Democrat no matter what.
Regardless, one controversial statement isn't going to outshine what Obama has done for the last 4 years, including lying about what happened with the terrorist attacs on 9/11.
Only 18% of that 47% don't pay taxes because they are too poor. If he was referring to them, he would have said so. Note that he has never attempted to clarify his comments, merely support them. He was specifically referring to the entire 47%, which includes the elderly, veterans, military, blue collar workers, and billionaires; five groups that consistently vote Republican.
The way I look at it is he talked about the specifics of who he was talking about. When he said the 47% figure he was just making a point that a massive segment of our population isn't paying taxes, and the majority of them vote Democrat. There's not a definite 100% in any group. If Romney were to say that he's not going to try to lure the black vote because they vote Democrat, he would generally be right although there are blacks that vote Republican (5% to 10%). The black Republicans would be smart enough to know that he's referring to the demographic in general as a whole, not the black Republicans. On the same notion, the people in the 47% that don't have an entitlement mentality should know that Romney wasn't referring to them. He specifically said he was talking about the entitlement class that expects government to give them handouts.
You know Romney wasn't talking about others that may also be in that 47% group.
He dismissed half of the population, many of whom vote Republican. I wouldn't call that "nothing." Especially since his poll numbers have gone down as a result.
Of COURSE the Libtards and Usual Suspects are going bananas about this! Romney only spoke Truth to Power, which they cannot tolerate. Since they have nothing to offer except failure and vitriol, they've been serving both up in buckets.
HypeAndFail.com--get the Obama Facepalm FAIL t-shirt and show the world how you feel about Maxine Water's President!
Guess who leaked it? Jimmy Carter's grandson.
Social justice wins all the time. I just hope that some of them wise up instead of looking for handouts and get off their butts and go to work.
What makes up that 47%? 4,000 millionaires did not pay income taxes becasue of loopholes and deductions. The elderly and receiving Medicars and Social Security. THhe working poor who after deductions do not qualify for income taxes but pay state and payroll taxes.
This is just stereotyping from rich people who have an ignorant view of the rest of society. It isn't true becasue you believe it. As the buddhist say, "don't believe what you think"
So........what?! This is reality, folks. And, as Romney said, there are many who are in the tank-no surprise to anyone, I think. Also, there are some who will respond to his not-attacking-Obama, perhaps. Where is the surprise, the "gotcha" or "smoking gun" in this?!
Losers. And they know they're losing. Grasping at straws!! Fitting for those who love to build and parade straw men 24/7/365.....
I went by an ill-maintained house yesterday with an Obama 2012 yard sign and said to myself: "A check goes there every month."
It's actually 47% of the 41% of the total population who actually vote. 19% of the general population. I doubt the Colonists had better odds.
In April 2010, the Tax Policy Center tried to straighten out Republicans and conservative media who were continuing to misuse their research, “Let me explain—repeat actually—what this means: About half of taxpayers paid no federal income tax last year. It does not mean they paid no tax at all. Many shelled out Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. In fact, only 14 percent of Americans didn’t pay either income or payroll taxes....It is a powerful emotional argument. It is also flat wrong.” - From the Article
I heard about the video on Greta's show. I am thinking, what did Romney said that he had to do a news conference. I just listened to all these videos, can't figure out what he had to clarify. He was just talking about his strategy from a campaign point-of-view.
You all do realize that MSNBC and AC360 CNN are rabidly talking about this as though it were the biggest secret they have uncovered for this election and how this video is going to destroy Romney's chances of being re-elected. It is sickening how the media runs with the story when there is a conspiracy going on in the Middle East and the Obama Administration is trying to cover it up by blaming everything on a You Tube trailer rather than on Obama's own failed foreign policy. I don't know how many people the press is going to convince to be against Romeny because of this video. I'm guessing about 47%?
Romney is absolutely correct. He is rational and logical. You can see how he became so successful.This is going to be a fight to the finish.
Any of you geniuses ever taken the time to look at the numbers of federal tax dollars collected as taxes, and paid out per capita for social welfare spending? The reason we are laughing at Romney (and you) is that red states pay the least in per capital federal income tax, per get getting the most fed tax dollars for per capita than blue states. Regarding social welfare spending. These are state mostly run by republicans. The exception is Texas, but you fall on bad luck down there, they just let you die off on the street. And there are more poor white republican voters in the south than there are black ones. So Mitt was largely dissing his own voters/
The Wikipedia link is a list of state Governors. It proves the OP's assertion.
George Soros is neither a Communist, nor connected to Wikipedia.
Thank you for your links, but they do not prove your assertion. The tax foundation while an interesting link did not say anything about Republicans running the show as you alleged.
And wikepedia, is connected to communist george soros.
So the one exception is Arkansas.
Stay with it Mitt. You will energize the base, and the other bums aren't voting for you anyway so screw 'em.
This comment by Romney is ignorant nonsense. Lots of people (myself included) will vote for him despite a long and successful history of employment and achievement, mostly, in my case, in the private sector. We understand what Romney pretends in this statement that he doesn't - that America doesn't succeed when everyone successful ends up behind the walls of their gated communities - that we have to build a country that is for all of its citizens. Romney understands his obligations to the poor. He is playing to the worst in the crowd, however.
The Christians and Jews among you know it well - Jesus pictured people from all nations gathered before him, separated into "sheep" and "goats." (Matthew 25:31-46) To the "sheep" he says, "Come you blessed of my Father, for I was hungry and you fed me..." In their astonishment they ask, "When did we do that?" And he answers, "When you did it to the lowliest of my brothers (and sisters)." http://www.jesuscentral.com/ji/life-of-jesus-modern/jesus-poor.php). Also, consider Isaiah 58:7 - Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?
This is the kind of society - not an entitlement society, but a compassionate one, that understands the obligations of success, not merely the rewards.
People often emphasize the first part of the bible verse " Give unto Cesar's what is Cesar's" and ignore that last part of the verse "and give unto G-d what is G-d's ".
When Government gets their greedy self-indulgent hands on G-d's domain it never works and in fact, disastrous results are to expected.
Copeland: The Devil is Trying to Destroy America with Progressive Socialism
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Thu, 08/02/2012 - 11:53am
While addressing the "Under God: Indivisible" rally ahead of Glenn Beck's "Restoring Love" event, televangelist Kenneth Copeland declared that he doesn't need to form opinions about things like the Supreme Court's health care ruling or the state of the economy because he trusts in God.
As such, Copeland declared, if Christians would just put their trust in God, they would know that it was "our time to rise up and overcome all that the Devil has been trying to do to destroy this nation with progressive socialism for over a hundred and fifteen years - it is finished, it is done!":
A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER Part 1
Host: Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy, Jerry Newcombe
Speakers: Bishop Harry Jackson, Dr. Richard Land, Steve Forbes, Wendy Wright, Jay Richards, Chuck Colson, David Horowitz, Marvin Olasky, Al Mohler, Kay Arthur, Del Tackett
As the United States has recently moved toward more European models in health care, government control of banking and industry, and ever- increasing regulation of the marketplace, there is concern that socialism—and the philosophy behind it—is extending its tentacles into American life. Often, this socialism is even advocated by professing Christians, who claim that it more closely accords with the teaching of Jesus Christ than does free enterprise, which is sometimes called capitalism. Socialism essentially is the redistribution of wealth. Is this what the Bible teaches? To understand, we must first define socialism and see why some view it as a serious threat.
We are really boxed in by this 47% argument. The premise of the Republican party for several generations has been cutting taxes. Well, when you cut taxes people end up not paying much taxes. When it happens we grumble that half the country doesn't pay taxes. But as as soon as you do you open yourself up to the accusation that you want to raise taxes. That's why Romney will never use this argument in public or in debates.
Liberals hate truth, morality, ethics, history, facts, reality - Mitt has accurately described the Democrat base. Even they would admit this. Republicans are the producers, Democrats are the parasites. Democrats have no shame - they don't mind being called parasites - as long as they get their free stuff.
This is by far the most stupid, ignorant statement I have ever heard. Who the hell are you calling parasites and who producers? Are the wall street crowd that crashed the economy and then got their bonuses anyway (at our expense!) the producers or the parasites? I'd go with parasites on that one. Is the guy working two jobs and making $35k a year a producer or a parasite? You tell me....
I'm a Democrat and I don't get anything for free from the government - believe me - I pay plenty in taxes, and except for debacles like the Iraq war, I'm glad to do it because this is a great country. So don't go on with your imbecilic statements about Democrats as parasites. Not only is it insulting and untrue, sadly it seems to be Mitt's stupidity as well.
According to Zero's campaign:
"It's hard to serve as president for all Americans when you've disdainfully written off half the nation," Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a statement.
Well, they would know, wouldn't they? They've written off republicans, the TEA party, the military, the churches, and so on ad nauseum.
Amen!! I mean for him to act like Obama gives a darn about conservatives, republicans, workers, small businesses, religion and so is BS!! Messina is a jerk...Obama cares about himself!
MITT STAND TALL this was beautiful and so true!!! Let peole know you are trying to save the ones that PAY THE BILLS!! The leeches are the leeches. AMEN SOMEONE SAID IT!
DRUDGE HAS...ROMNEY GETS REAL....OBAMA SUPPORTERS ARE DEPENDENT ON GOVERNMENT....I LOVE IT!! that is spot on!