Did Romneyshambles just lose the election?

[Phatscotty]

I would ask then, is there evidence that these sorts have gotten to a level significant enough to warrant the statement that half of America is eternally unmotivated?
And does every welfare recipient HAVE a choice to work even if they wanted to at this point?
In my state each and every job fair has several times more applicants than jobs available, each and every time many people who want to work are unable to find jobs despite volunteering, so what happens to them without the net? Is it their fault that they aren't accepted?

What he meant was that people who do not pay taxes do not have much reason to vote for Romney.....

I understood it. This whole thing is about how what he said can be made to sound, and how people can use it and have it used for/against them. That is the reason that a couple of 10 seconds blurbs came out, and then when the rabbit is out of the hat, you can release the whole thing.

Symmetry should know better, being such and ardent observer of Shirly Sherrod. I guess he is a hypocrite afterall...

[Phatscotty]

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney is shitting on poor people. That you find that refreshing is what I find funny.

Dumping unemployment benefits for about 3 years doesn't benefit the unemployment as their skills go to waste and they're incentivized to not get a job--officially.

That is a tremendously strong point, and I want to add to it. I do most of the training at my job, and whenever we get a new guy, I always pick their brain about how the job market is out there, what kind of jobs weren't available, how much other jobs are paying, how long they were looking, how many applications they filled out, how many call backs they got...etc etc

I would have to say that 4 out of 5 guys say "It wasn't worth it to take the pay-cut to go back to work. I was making more on unemployment...." And that is the problem....it doesn't make sense to take work that is available.

Another strong point, 85% of people who exhaust their unemployment benefits find work in less than 21 days......

[Phatscotty]

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney is shitting on poor people. That you find that refreshing is what I find funny.

Are you sure that Romney wasn't saying that the 47% automatically shit on him? Nowhere is there any context to support the idea that Romney was saying what he would do to anybody. The context is about what 47% of people are highly unlikely to do to/for Romney.

[/]

It has become a way of life for many, which is unfortunate. What compounds this problem is that many people, with good intentions, have that kneejerk appeal to the State. They hate it when people point out problems with welfare entitlements or offer alternative means to provide such services. The debate shuts down for nearly all of them because for them the only possible choice must be government-provision. To generalize, in the progressive ideal, the state is the only savior for humanity, and of course only the politicians which the progressive supports are the well-intended and altruistic ones; whereas, any dissenters and criticizers are simply evil, greedy pigs.

It's a convenient worldview, but it has led us into our current problems.

Fair enough, I cannot claim I have enough wisdom to know the solution to such a complex situation, I only know that on a personal level, I feel it is inhumane and callous to allow a human to starve or die of exposure when it can be prevented, beyond that, the safety net can vary to any number of acceptable reformations in my opinion.

I would only point out the amount of people who receive some form of assistance from the government is around 8% (1.7% would be considered dependent), making them the minority of the 47% Romney was referencing that "dependent on the government"

[john9blue]

"romneyshambles"?

where did that name come from lol

also, i'm glad to see that he is standing behind his comments for the most part. i figured he would do a typical flip-flop or something.

[HapSmo19]

...there's nowhere safe I can put my money that earns modest interest.

greedy scum

[jonesthecurl]

This is largely not my fight - I don't get to vote in the USA - but no matter my politics, the Republican party has yet to put up a presidential candidate I'd trust to pick up the shopping, let alone be President.

[BigBallinStalin]

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney is shitting on poor people. That you find that refreshing is what I find funny.

Dumping unemployment benefits for about 3 years doesn't benefit the unemployment as their skills go to waste and they're incentivized to not get a job--officially.

Implementing such zero-sum exchanges from wealth taken from taxpayers is simply "shitting on everyone."

Allowing the Federal Reserve to ruin poor people's safest means of earning a future living is actually "shitting on poor people."

This is too easy, and what's worse is that the current administration actually does/allow the above to happen. It's not just rhetoric or informal speech. It's real action. So, why not have a benchmark of comparison? Maybe that would make your post look a bit pointless?

But hey, that doesn't look good in the liberal mindset, so let's gloss over the unintended consequences and problems of political decision-making--of the favored politicians, of course. The "good" guys. Of course! Carry on, Frigidus.

You know me, BBS. I totes love Obama, I have a huge man crush on Bernanke, and I shamelessly gush about how great it is that there's nowhere safe I can put my money that earns modest interest.

I KNEW IT!

[BigBallinStalin]

It has become a way of life for many, which is unfortunate. What compounds this problem is that many people, with good intentions, have that kneejerk appeal to the State. They hate it when people point out problems with welfare entitlements or offer alternative means to provide such services. The debate shuts down for nearly all of them because for them the only possible choice must be government-provision. To generalize, in the progressive ideal, the state is the only savior for humanity, and of course only the politicians which the progressive supports are the well-intended and altruistic ones; whereas, any dissenters and criticizers are simply evil, greedy pigs.

It's a convenient worldview, but it has led us into our current problems.

Fair enough, I cannot claim I have enough wisdom to know the solution to such a complex situation, I only know that on a personal level, I feel it is inhumane and callous to allow a human to starve or die of exposure when it can be prevented, beyond that, the safety net can vary to any number of acceptable reformations in my opinion.

I would only point out the amount of people who receive some form of assistance from the government is around 8% (1.7% would be considered dependent), making them the minority of the 47% Romney was referencing that "dependent on the government"

Yeah, it's called private charity. Americans used do be in that business until the government marginally crowded them out. If the government provides something at a lower cost (call it "predatory pricing"), then it becomes harder to justify staying in that business--especially if your demand melts away as consumers seek the new supplier.

The problem with government and its agencies is that if they're performing poorly or mess up big time, they never go bankrupt. There's no threat of competition for them to induce them to strive. You can vote in and out as many politicians as one likes, but that hardly affects the rules of the game for the institution of bureaucracy.

[BigBallinStalin]

This is largely not my fight - I don't get to vote in the USA - but no matter my politics, the Republican party has yet to put up a presidential candidate I'd trust to pick up the shopping, let alone be President.

Agreed. I can't believe how dumb the Republicans have been. They're a laughing stock. They need some tough guy up there saying, this is what we have to do in order to make this country great again. It won't be easy, but I won't sell you false hope. I'm offering you a real chance to change things. It's four more years of mild growth and high unemployment from that clueless politician who has no financial sense, or you can bank on me and my plan, which does offer hope, and will make this country great again. [insert the hard-to-sell plan here; cuts in spending, tax increases, clearer rules, simpler regulation, less susceptibility to political meandering, more transparency in political contributions].

[thegreekdog]

This is largely not my fight - I don't get to vote in the USA - but no matter my politics, the Republican party has yet to put up a presidential candidate I'd trust to pick up the shopping, let alone be President.

Agreed. I can't believe how dumb the Republicans have been. They're a laughing stock. They need some tough guy up there saying, this is what we have to do in order to make this country great again. It won't be easy, but I won't sell you false hope. I'm offering you a real chance to change things. It's four more years of mild growth and high unemployment from that clueless politician who has no financial sense, or you can bank on me and my plan, which does offer hope, and will make this country great again. [insert the hard-to-sell plan here; cuts in spending, tax increases, clearer rules, simpler regulation, less susceptibility to political meandering, more transparency in political contributions].

I'm not sure why I replied to this particular post (and not others), but I think Frigidus and notyou2 are indicating not that they are supportive of the president (Obama), but that they do not understand the blind loyalty that Night Strike, nobunaga, etc. have put in Romney. I agree with both Frigidus and notyou2. Politically this was a stupid comment. Factually this was a stupid comment. Why defend him?

[thegreekdog]

Just to put this in perspective... the Romney "gaffe" would be like if President Obama said, "47% of the people aren't going to vote for me because they are racist or rich fatcats." I wonder if the president or anyone associated with his campaign said that.

[BigBallinStalin]

This is largely not my fight - I don't get to vote in the USA - but no matter my politics, the Republican party has yet to put up a presidential candidate I'd trust to pick up the shopping, let alone be President.

Agreed. I can't believe how dumb the Republicans have been. They're a laughing stock. They need some tough guy up there saying, this is what we have to do in order to make this country great again. It won't be easy, but I won't sell you false hope. I'm offering you a real chance to change things. It's four more years of mild growth and high unemployment from that clueless politician who has no financial sense, or you can bank on me and my plan, which does offer hope, and will make this country great again. [insert the hard-to-sell plan here; cuts in spending, tax increases, clearer rules, simpler regulation, less susceptibility to political meandering, more transparency in political contributions].

I'm not sure why I replied to this particular post (and not others), but I think Frigidus and notyou2 are indicating not that they are supportive of the president (Obama), but that they do not understand the blind loyalty that Night Strike, nobunaga, etc. have put in Romney. I agree with both Frigidus and notyou2. Politically this was a stupid comment. Factually this was a stupid comment. Why defend him?

I'm mostly annoyed at the variance in people's (liberals' ITT) reaction to this story.

You see, Obama has done a lot of dumb shit, but no one really cares.

Then Romney says some dumb shit, and then they're all up in arms about it.

But wait, shouldn't they be leveling that criticizing against... Oh, I dunno, maybe the actual person in charge who is responsible for many of today's problems?

Even though they don't explicitly support Obama, deep down inside they're pro-crony capitalist--as long as it has the face of a Democrat and smells of artificial Progress.

We're living in a weird time... perhaps most liberals have lost their roots. They seem to be floating on the superficial, the rhetoric, the Idea that select politicians are doing well for them and the "common good." Many of them seem just as disillusioned as the crony-capitalist Republicans, and many are equally unwilling to admit it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Just to put this in perspective... the Romney "gaffe" would be like if President Obama said, "47% of the people aren't going to vote for me because they are racist or rich fatcats." I wonder if the president or anyone associated with his campaign said that.

Hey, if you recorded Obama 24/7 without him knowing, I'm sure you'd find all sorts of disturbing things.


The reactions from many to this whole story is absurd though. People are surprised that politicians and political wanna-be's say blunt things to closed groups of people.

"Oh my! Politicians are two-faced!? NO WAY!! Of course, the politician which advertises my worldview certainly isn't like Romney. No no no!"

Most of the people who are in an uproar about this Romney gaffe are naive.

[Woodruff]

I guess what they say is true about Progressives. Divide the people up into ethnic, racial, and gender and wealth classes, play them off against each other, and bash with political correctness anyone who dares to look under the rug and even mention what they see

And right here is the whole point of that "Progressives" thread. Right here. Another term for Phatscotty's lexicon of "words to use against the other side as if they are insults".

[comic boy]

Just to put this in perspective... the Romney "gaffe" would be like if President Obama said, "47% of the people aren't going to vote for me because they are racist or rich fatcats." I wonder if the president or anyone associated with his campaign said that.

Hey, if you recorded Obama 24/7 without him knowing, I'm sure you'd find all sorts of disturbing things.


The reactions from many to this whole story is absurd though. People are surprised that politicians and political wanna-be's say blunt things to closed groups of people.

"Oh my! Politicians are two-faced!? NO WAY!! Of course, the politician which advertises my worldview certainly isn't like Romney. No no no!"

Most of the people who are in an uproar about this Romney gaffe are naive.

The reality is that in the last couple of days Obamas odds on getting re-elected have hardened to 2/7 , bookmakers are are not renowned for their naivety.

[Woodruff]

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney is shitting on poor people. That you find that refreshing is what I find funny.

Dumping unemployment benefits for about 3 years doesn't benefit the unemployment as their skills go to waste and they're incentivized to not get a job--officially.

That is a tremendously strong point, and I want to add to it. I do most of the training at my job, and whenever we get a new guy, I always pick their brain about how the job market is out there, what kind of jobs weren't available, how much other jobs are paying, how long they were looking, how many applications they filled out, how many call backs they got...etc etc

I would have to say that 4 out of 5 guys say "It wasn't worth it to take the pay-cut to go back to work. I was making more on unemployment...." And that is the problem....it doesn't make sense to take work that is available.

Another strong point, 85% of people who exhaust their unemployment benefits find work in less than 21 days......

Based on the other shit you spew in these fora without any substantiation, I'm gonna have to say your statistics are bullshit.

[Woodruff]

I'm mostly annoyed at the variance in people's (liberals' ITT) reaction to this story.
You see, Obama has done a lot of dumb shit, but no one really cares.
Then Romney says some dumb shit, and then they're all up in arms about it.

Really? Liberals haven't started threads criticizing Obama?

[BigBallinStalin]

Just to put this in perspective... the Romney "gaffe" would be like if President Obama said, "47% of the people aren't going to vote for me because they are racist or rich fatcats." I wonder if the president or anyone associated with his campaign said that.

Hey, if you recorded Obama 24/7 without him knowing, I'm sure you'd find all sorts of disturbing things.


The reactions from many to this whole story is absurd though. People are surprised that politicians and political wanna-be's say blunt things to closed groups of people.

"Oh my! Politicians are two-faced!? NO WAY!! Of course, the politician which advertises my worldview certainly isn't like Romney. No no no!"

Most of the people who are in an uproar about this Romney gaffe are naive.

The reality is that in the last couple of days Obamas odds on getting re-elected have hardened to 2/7 , bookmakers are are not renowned for their naivety.

I'm not at all talking about chances of Obama's reelection.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm mostly annoyed at the variance in people's (liberals' ITT) reaction to this story.
You see, Obama has done a lot of dumb shit, but no one really cares.
Then Romney says some dumb shit, and then they're all up in arms about it.

Really? Liberals haven't started threads criticizing Obama?

What does variance mean?

How about "really cares"?

[Woodruff]

I'm mostly annoyed at the variance in people's (liberals' ITT) reaction to this story.
You see, Obama has done a lot of dumb shit, but no one really cares.
Then Romney says some dumb shit, and then they're all up in arms about it.

Really? Liberals haven't started threads criticizing Obama?

What does variance mean?

How about "really cares"?

Sorry, I again made the mistake of thinking you wanted a legitimate discussion. I should have known better. I won't make that mistake again.

[comic boy]

Just to put this in perspective... the Romney "gaffe" would be like if President Obama said, "47% of the people aren't going to vote for me because they are racist or rich fatcats." I wonder if the president or anyone associated with his campaign said that.

Hey, if you recorded Obama 24/7 without him knowing, I'm sure you'd find all sorts of disturbing things.


The reactions from many to this whole story is absurd though. People are surprised that politicians and political wanna-be's say blunt things to closed groups of people.

"Oh my! Politicians are two-faced!? NO WAY!! Of course, the politician which advertises my worldview certainly isn't like Romney. No no no!"

Most of the people who are in an uproar about this Romney gaffe are naive.

The reality is that in the last couple of days Obamas odds on getting re-elected have hardened to 2/7 , bookmakers are are not renowned for their naivety.

I'm not at all talking about chances of Obama's reelection.

Obamas re-election will be in many ways by default because Romney is appearing unelectable , his gaffes are the reason why , it is in fact naive not to recognise this .

[thegreekdog]

Just to put this in perspective... the Romney "gaffe" would be like if President Obama said, "47% of the people aren't going to vote for me because they are racist or rich fatcats." I wonder if the president or anyone associated with his campaign said that.

Hey, if you recorded Obama 24/7 without him knowing, I'm sure you'd find all sorts of disturbing things.


The reactions from many to this whole story is absurd though. People are surprised that politicians and political wanna-be's say blunt things to closed groups of people.

"Oh my! Politicians are two-faced!? NO WAY!! Of course, the politician which advertises my worldview certainly isn't like Romney. No no no!"

Most of the people who are in an uproar about this Romney gaffe are naive.

I'm pretty sure the president and those in his campaign have pretty much said all those things already. I guess I should have used the sarcasm tags.

[thegreekdog]

This is largely not my fight - I don't get to vote in the USA - but no matter my politics, the Republican party has yet to put up a presidential candidate I'd trust to pick up the shopping, let alone be President.

Agreed. I can't believe how dumb the Republicans have been. They're a laughing stock. They need some tough guy up there saying, this is what we have to do in order to make this country great again. It won't be easy, but I won't sell you false hope. I'm offering you a real chance to change things. It's four more years of mild growth and high unemployment from that clueless politician who has no financial sense, or you can bank on me and my plan, which does offer hope, and will make this country great again. [insert the hard-to-sell plan here; cuts in spending, tax increases, clearer rules, simpler regulation, less susceptibility to political meandering, more transparency in political contributions].

I'm not sure why I replied to this particular post (and not others), but I think Frigidus and notyou2 are indicating not that they are supportive of the president (Obama), but that they do not understand the blind loyalty that Night Strike, nobunaga, etc. have put in Romney. I agree with both Frigidus and notyou2. Politically this was a stupid comment. Factually this was a stupid comment. Why defend him?

I'm mostly annoyed at the variance in people's (liberals' ITT) reaction to this story.

You see, Obama has done a lot of dumb shit, but no one really cares.

Then Romney says some dumb shit, and then they're all up in arms about it.

But wait, shouldn't they be leveling that criticizing against... Oh, I dunno, maybe the actual person in charge who is responsible for many of today's problems?

Even though they don't explicitly support Obama, deep down inside they're pro-crony capitalist--as long as it has the face of a Democrat and smells of artificial Progress.

We're living in a weird time... perhaps most liberals have lost their roots. They seem to be floating on the superficial, the rhetoric, the Idea that select politicians are doing well for them and the "common good." Many of them seem just as disillusioned as the crony-capitalist Republicans, and many are equally unwilling to admit it.

I wouldn't limit your criticism to liberals (although you haven't). It has become clear, at least since Bush I, that politics involve increasingly more rhetoric and gaffes and "electability" than problem-solving or constructive criticism. I'm not sure who to blame(inb4 "I blame Democrats" or "I blame Republicans"), but it's clearly a problem when the concentration becomes "where is the president's birth certificate / where are Romney's tax returns" and "Obama is socialist / Romney is a rich fatcat" and the concentration is not on "why are we here in the first place and what can we do to fix it."

[thegreekdog]

I'm mostly annoyed at the variance in people's (liberals' ITT) reaction to this story.
You see, Obama has done a lot of dumb shit, but no one really cares.
Then Romney says some dumb shit, and then they're all up in arms about it.

Really? Liberals haven't started threads criticizing Obama?

What does variance mean?

How about "really cares"?

Sorry, I again made the mistake of thinking you wanted a legitimate discussion. I should have known better. I won't make that mistake again.

[sarcasm] Yes, because "Really? Liberals haven't started threads criticizing Obama?" is the beginning of a legitimate discussion.[/sarcasm]. I'm not sure you understood his post, but God forbid anyone criticizes your understanding of anything.