Anonymous wrote:Question for all of you who think the 47% are mooching off of you -- why don't you just join them?
You make it sound like they're having a ball, lounging around the pool and popping bon-bons while you slave away. So, what's stopping you from quitting your job, going on welfare and living the high life?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I just feel more comfortable with a man like Romney--he just looks like a president should. And I like money! I am Mormon, it's true--and I went to BYU. I don't care about the Supreme Court appointees being anti-abortion. I have all sons--wish I had 6 like Anne! I would hope that they will do as they were raised to and marry a girl in that situation. I do not feel comfortable with a person like Obama just on general principle--he isn't a typical black so race has nothing to do with it. I think most Romney supporters would agree with me. People wouldn't want to go out and have a beer with me anyway, as I am Mormon, of course I don't drink!
What 'kind of person' is Obama that you are not comfortable with?
Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I just feel more comfortable with a man like Romney--he just looks like a president should. And I like money! I am Mormon, it's true--and I went to BYU. I don't care about the Supreme Court appointees being anti-abortion. I have all sons--wish I had 6 like Anne! I would hope that they will do as they were raised to and marry a girl in that situation. I do not feel comfortable with a person like Obama just on general principle--he isn't a typical black so race has nothing to do with it. I think most Romney supporters would agree with me. People wouldn't want to go out and have a beer with me anyway, as I am Mormon, of course I don't drink!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He doesn't divide America, doesn't have a distaste for success and supports an agenda that encourages investment and risk, rather than send signals of uncertainty and defeated leadership.
Huh. You must have slept through that whole 'half the people in this country are moochers' thing.
I'm pretty sure no one is certain what Mitt Romney will do since, well, he hasn't told us. He certainly creates a lot of uncertainty in foreign policy.
You think Obama has defeated leadership? By what measure? He's leading and winning the polls and he will win by a landslide in November.
Don't be stupid. Sadly for you, a lot of people are aware that what he meant was Obama's got 47% committed, which he can't worry about electorally
No, what he said and what he MEANT was that he can't ever convince these people to care more about their lives. That's what he says.
He is a despicable human being for that. How dare he insult Americans. Most people have been in the 47% at one point or another. No self-respecting Republican would vote for someone who said such a terrible, disrespectful, and unAmerican thing.
So he got his numbers messed up. 47% of the people in the U.S. aren't going to vote for him no matter what. There is some number of people who do not pay income tax. There is another number of people who actually get a tax refund yet they have never paid income tax because of the earned income tax credit (which Reagan put in place, btw). This, I care about because I do pay taxes and I don't believe one group should shoulder all the burden while another group recoups benefits for extended periods of time. Welfare programs are necessary, but they should not a stopping point. There should be programs to make these people self sufficient.
A rising tide floats all boats, the problem is the tide isn't rising. If Obama stays on track, will the tide rise? I don't know. If we elect Romney, will the tide rise? I don't know. The key difference between the two is that Obama won't cut programs and spending, but Romney will.
I frankly don't like my choices at all, and I don't know who I will vote for. Won't matter for me though, I live in Maryland.
The premise of what I bolded is incorrect. By any and every measure, the economy is better than the numbers when Obama took office. With the nominal exception of unemployment, which is a lagging indicator -- and unemployment is certainly better since the stimulus took effect. Moreover, a large chunk of the American people really do understand things would have been worse under a McCain-Palin administration.
Anonymous wrote:
Maybe he should spend some time hobnobbing with celebs like Obama, champion of the poor (vomit)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He doesn't divide America, doesn't have a distaste for success and supports an agenda that encourages investment and risk, rather than send signals of uncertainty and defeated leadership.
Huh. You must have slept through that whole 'half the people in this country are moochers' thing.
I'm pretty sure no one is certain what Mitt Romney will do since, well, he hasn't told us. He certainly creates a lot of uncertainty in foreign policy.
You think Obama has defeated leadership? By what measure? He's leading and winning the polls and he will win by a landslide in November.
Don't be stupid. Sadly for you, a lot of people are aware that what he meant was Obama's got 47% committed, which he can't worry about electorally
No, what he said and what he MEANT was that he can't ever convince these people to care more about their lives. That's what he says.
He is a despicable human being for that. How dare he insult Americans. Most people have been in the 47% at one point or another. No self-respecting Republican would vote for someone who said such a terrible, disrespectful, and unAmerican thing.
So he got his numbers messed up. 47% of the people in the U.S. aren't going to vote for him no matter what. There is some number of people who do not pay income tax. There is another number of people who actually get a tax refund yet they have never paid income tax because of the earned income tax credit (which Reagan put in place, btw). This, I care about because I do pay taxes and I don't believe one group should shoulder all the burden while another group recoups benefits for extended periods of time. Welfare programs are necessary, but they should not a stopping point. There should be programs to make these people self sufficient.
A rising tide floats all boats, the problem is the tide isn't rising. If Obama stays on track, will the tide rise? I don't know. If we elect Romney, will the tide rise? I don't know. The key difference between the two is that Obama won't cut programs and spending, but Romney will.
I frankly don't like my choices at all, and I don't know who I will vote for. Won't matter for me though, I live in Maryland.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The 47% isn't one solid, unchanging group, genius. People access government services when they need them -- until they hit 65 and tap Medicare and Social Security. Then we're all in the 47%.
Who are you talking to genius? And once again, he was referring to the 47% committed to voting once again for the Hope and Change....not the lies that you continue to spew.
Except that's not actually what he said.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He doesn't divide America, doesn't have a distaste for success and supports an agenda that encourages investment and risk, rather than send signals of uncertainty and defeated leadership.
Huh. You must have slept through that whole 'half the people in this country are moochers' thing.
I'm pretty sure no one is certain what Mitt Romney will do since, well, he hasn't told us. He certainly creates a lot of uncertainty in foreign policy.
You think Obama has defeated leadership? By what measure? He's leading and winning the polls and he will win by a landslide in November.
Don't be stupid. Sadly for you, a lot of people are aware that what he meant was Obama's got 47% committed, which he can't worry about electorally
No, what he said and what he MEANT was that he can't ever convince these people to care more about their lives. That's what he says.
He is a despicable human being for that. How dare he insult Americans. Most people have been in the 47% at one point or another. No self-respecting Republican would vote for someone who said such a terrible, disrespectful, and unAmerican thing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He doesn't divide America, doesn't have a distaste for success and supports an agenda that encourages investment and risk, rather than send signals of uncertainty and defeated leadership.
Huh. You must have slept through that whole 'half the people in this country are moochers' thing.
I'm pretty sure no one is certain what Mitt Romney will do since, well, he hasn't told us. He certainly creates a lot of uncertainty in foreign policy.
You think Obama has defeated leadership? By what measure? He's leading and winning the polls and he will win by a landslide in November.
Don't be stupid. Sadly for you, a lot of people are aware that what he meant was Obama's got 47% committed, which he can't worry about electorally
Yeah, well, your candidate just learned a tough lesson that what you say and how you say it matters, whether you think it is private or not. You are running for President - NOTHING YOU SAY IS PRIVATE OR OFF THE RECORD. Boo fucking hoo. Face it, he's not ready for prime time. Period.
And once again, he was referring to the 47% committed to voting once again for the Hope and Change....not the lies that you continue to spew.