Romney stands by message in secret video

[iloveangels]

But would he campaign in the minority neighborhoods? See, that’s why Democrats who do enter their neighborhoods need to be converted, especially if no Republican dares to go there. Typically those minority neighborhoods vote Democratic. Broomwagon brought up some very important statistics IMO. If we want to try to reduce the number of abortions, we need to focus on that and forget the politics. But that’s easier said than done, I know.

That’s not true, ProVobis, about the neighborhoods. You have a lot of misconceptions and stereotypes going here.

 

[migueltojose]

Hmmmm, I don’t know, milquetoast. I think dropping your bloomers for a casual stranger is pretty much on a par with taking a sneaky snapshot or two.

It’s pretty much like a den of thieves at that point. Nobody was behaving, it sounds like.

[PS. I’m a convert of many years. I already know that the moral fibre of some Catholics is about like an AWOL beagle. So all this may not be too shocking to some people. But what Harry did wasn’t cool. He’s lucky they just took his pictures and that’s all. The whole thing just wasn’t very smart.]

Milquetoast…

I agree dumb and dumber… which supports what I said, two wrongs don’t make a right…

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas… …not… the shock factor has taken a hit in recent years across the board, not just for milquetoast and some people… it definitely wasn’t cool, nor were the snapshots and whoever took them…

i love angels too

 

[iloveangels]

Milquetoast…

I agree dumb and dumber… which supports what I said, two wrongs don’t make a right…

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas… …not… the shock factor has taken a hit in recent years across the board, not just for milquetoast and some people… it definitely wasn’t cool, nor were the snapshots and whoever took them…

i love angels too

Sorry, I misread your handle, migueltojose.

Anyway, yup. The Royal family seems to be getting a lot of free publicity and … fresh air …lately. Glad we don’t have a royal family. One less thing to be embarrassed by.

 

[CMatt25]

I wouldn’t expect that anytime soon. Supposedly, liberals were disappointed in Obama, but they shut them up in a hurry once campaigning began.

No one shut us up, rLg. We simply much prefer Obama to the alternative of a nation being run by far right extremists. I pray daily our nation is not turned over to Romney bowing to a Republican Tea Party Congress.

 

[iloveangels]

No one shut us up, rLg. We simply much prefer Obama to the alternative of a nation being run by far right extremists. I pray daily our nation is not turned over to Romney bowing to a Republican Tea Party Congress.

Just like I simply prefer Romney to the alternative of a nation that’s bent on socialism and redistribution of wealth. I pray daily our country is not turned over to the fanatics in the Democratic party for 4 more years.

 

[CMatt25]

since they are incrementally installing their programs, you say " see, they are not leftists, but centrists." This last point I have been making to you for a while, Cmatt, but you have never really answered it. Why?

Ishii

If I’ve never really answered it to your satisfaction, Ishii, it’s because first of all we disagree on politics and clearly anything I say is not going to satisfy you. And Obama has already said he might have preferred single payer if we were starting over which we aren’t he has made clear. And it’s no different than for instance saying Romney’s VP pick Paul Ryan’s plan is to turn Medicare over to a voucher system giving future seniors a premium support check to go out and spend it towards a private insurance policy and make up the difference of the cost of the policy out of their own pocket. Then when that doesn’t fly with the American people someone comes up with a choice. But you claim traditional Medicare as we know it can’t make it. So if that’s what you believe, why give it as a choice? So then when the majority who don’t like the voucher, choose the traditional, you incrementally implement the voucher system anyway.

 

[CMatt25]

Have I ever talked like that here? Ever?

It’s when I state the facts, like there are more poor people in the US since 2008, or that home owner ship is at its lowest in a decade.

No idea. I can’t say I’ve read every one of your posts. Which is why I said I could not speak for your situation. I was merely replying to why a liberal might not respond to someone who has talked like that here or anywhere for that matter. Or might end the conversation with “agree to disagree” and let it go at that.

 

[pnewton]

Milquetoast…
…i love angels too

Miguel,

I have been lurking here and really enjoyed the laugh this gave me. It has gotten to be one of the funniest boo-boo’s I have seen in a while.

Nice reply, btw.

 

[CMatt25]

Just like I simply prefer Romney to the alternative of a nation that’s bent on socialism and redistribution of wealth. I pray daily our country is not turned over to the fanatics in the Democratic party for 4 more years.

Shocking as it may be what those of you who talk against redistribution don’t seem to grasp is taxation is redistribution. That’s what taxation is. While I happen to believe higher incomes should pay higher rates, even under the beloved conservative flat tax, higher incomes would still pay more dollars assuning they didn’t have the advantages of loopholes. And even the military is redistribution. We’re not all out there defending our country. Young brave soldiers are serving all of us. Redistribution is not a dirty word in my book.

 

[ishii]

If I’ve never really answered it to your satisfaction, Ishii, it’s because first of all we disagree on politics and clearly anything I say is not going to satisfy you. And Obama has already said he might have preferred single payer if we were starting over which we aren’t he has made clear. And it’s no different than for instance saying Romney’s VP pick Paul Ryan’s plan is to turn Medicare over to a voucher system giving future seniors a premium support check to go out and spend it towards a private insurance policy and make up the difference of the cost of the policy out of their own pocket. Then when that doesn’t fly with the American people someone comes up with a choice. But you claim traditional Medicare as we know it can’t make it. So if that’s what you believe, why give it as a choice? So then when the majority who don’t like the voucher, choose the traditional, you incrementally implement the voucher system anyway.

Let me try again, Cmatt: You always say, " Obama didn’t propose a single payer socialized medicine program - see, he’s not a leftist." But what you don’t understand is that because America is a center-right country, a leftist president can’t ram socialized medicine down our throats even thought he wants to! If he had done that, as you wanted him to, he would have gotten whipped even more by the GOP in the mid-terms. And so, realizing that, the left plays it safe, slowly but surely putting their program through in smaller steps, and gradually. It is the same ultimate goal - a centralized government and secular/leftist society. Leftists believe that history is on their side - no hurry and no need for revolution. Instead, install your socialist state while one segment already has a vested interest in the handouts, protecting government/public sector union jobs, etc. Another segment is the true-believing left, another segment is pre-occupied with pop culture - only caring about how their NFL team did on Monday Night Football or the Kardashians or the lates reality show. And then there is the rest - tea partiers and those who realize that America as we know it is at stake in this election and are fighting to defeat the leftist Obama.

Ishii

 

[migueltojose]

Shocking as it may be what those of you who talk against redistribution don’t seem to grasp is taxation is redistribution. That’s what taxation is. While I happen to believe higher incomes should pay higher rates, even under the beloved conservative flat tax, higher incomes would still pay more dollars assuning they didn’t have the advantages of loopholes. And even the military is redistribution. We’re not all out there defending our country. Young brave soldiers are serving all of us. Redistribution is not a dirty word in my book.

So I take it you are an Obama/democrat supporter. How do you deal with the so-called “non-negotiables”? Especially the big “A” that was so grossly and chillingly on parade at the Democratic Convention.

 

[ishii]

Shocking as it may be what those of you who talk against redistribution don’t seem to grasp is taxation is redistribution. That’s what taxation is. While I happen to believe higher incomes should pay higher rates, even under the beloved conservative flat tax, higher incomes would still pay more dollars assuning they didn’t have the advantages of loopholes. And even the military is redistribution. We’re not all out there defending our country. Young brave soldiers are serving all of us. Redistribution is not a dirty word in my book.

I would argue that a flat tax is not “redistribution” but its worth asking just what is “resdistribution”. Higher incomes do pay higher rates. How is the military “redistribution” ? Whatever the technical definition of the word, I associate it with the worst of failed welfare policies and free public housing that always ends up getting trashed. If people are given handouts, they will not appreciate them - but come to expect and rely on the handouts. If you want to see that principle in action, go to any inner city public housing area - and look at how trashed it is. No pride of ownership. In fact, no pride at all (or very little). Nothing charitable about government programs which create poverty and despair like the programs that screwed up our inner cities. Have you ever wondered, Cmatt, if liberal Democrat ideas are so great, then why are the inner cities of these major cities that are run by liberal Democrats over the pasts few decades so screwed up? Liberal welfare policies don’t work.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

So I take it you are an Obama/democrat supporter. How do you deal with the so-called “non-negotiables”? Especially the big “A” that was so grossly and chillingly on parade at the Democratic Convention.

I think I can anwer that - goes something like this:

“I don’t care if Obama supports partial birth abortion and infanticide, because Obama is for more welfare for the poor! Therefore, by voting for Obama, I am fullfilling the gospel requirement to help the poor ( the ones fortunate enough to not get aborted).”

" But how can you vote for someone who is for infanticide?"

" well, we can’t push our morality on others - if someone wants to kill their baby after its born, then I can say that’s wrong. We live in a democracy of plural beliefs. Obama’s for helping the poor! "

*“But killing a baby is wrong!” *

" Obama’s for helping the poor!"

Ishii

 

[migueltojose]

Shocking as it may be what those of you who talk against redistribution don’t seem to grasp is taxation is redistribution. That’s what taxation is. While I happen to believe higher incomes should pay higher rates, even under the beloved conservative flat tax, higher incomes would still pay more dollars assuning they didn’t have the advantages of loopholes. And even the military is redistribution. We’re not all out there defending our country. Young brave soldiers are serving all of us. Redistribution is not a dirty word in my book.

Please see my poll at the ‘moral theology’ forum. It may be misplaced, might be better under ‘Social Justice’.

Also, our tax system is already very very progressive… i.e. top heavy… I think that’s why those against further 'redistribution" via taxes have a legitimate argument. However, we do have a serious income distribution issue. There needs to be a better understanding of the root cause because “taxes” don’t appear to be the solution. We also have to be “competitive” with our taxes (and other things) since we do deal in a global economy, like it or not.

One not so savory hypothesis is that historically a small middle class is normal. (A necessary buffer between the haves and have nots) The haves and the have nots (mostly have nots) make up the majority. Market forces determine this and those forces, especially on a global playing field are bigger than any US policy. It is a conundrum, for sure. What we really need is for the quality of life for the entire world to be raised. Make them all good little consumers like we are, buying refrigerators, washers and driers, even having electricity and running water. Maybe they can all have the opportunity to become obese too. Wouldn’t that be something. But alas, we can’t make their governments “do the right things” any more than we can get our too (okay that was a little harsh). People have to “choose” to do the right things, not be coerced by their governments. That requires, education (especially the virtues and deadly sins), evangelization and enlightenment. It will be done, sooner or later.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

I think I can anwer that - goes something like this:

“I don’t care if Obama supports partial birth abortion and infanticide, because Obama is for more welfare for the poor! Therefore, by voting for Obama, I am fullfilling the gospel requirement to help the poor ( the ones fortunate enough to not get aborted).”

" But how can you vote for someone who is for infanticide?"

" well, we can’t push our morality on others - if someone wants to kill their baby after its born, then I can say that’s wrong. We live in a democracy of plural beliefs. Obama’s for helping the poor! "

*“But killing a baby is wrong!” *

" Obama’s for helping the poor!"

Ishii

The problem with talking to empty chairs is that the only voice you hear is your own.

I ‘support’ Obama because he is more likely to do the most good overall. When voting for a candidate you must account not only for the positions they support but how likely they are to have an influence over them, either through action or through speech. Abortion is truly the greatest evil in our society, but their are others that come close, especially when you add them up. (These include but are not limited to rampant divorce, unjust wars, alcoholism and drug abuse, child abuse, discrimination, poverty, depression.) The calculus of voting is about multiplying the importance of the cause times the likelihood of the person affecting that cause and then summing them up.

I judge the likeliness of either Obama or Romney having an effect on the abortion issue to be so small that its effect is smaller than lesser issues such as the others listed. For instance, if I recall correctly, the number of abortions in the US has decreased under the Obama administration.

Others have different opinions than I do, including other liberals and that is ok.

 

[rlg94086]

Just like I simply prefer Romney to the alternative of a nation that’s bent on socialism and redistribution of wealth. I pray daily our country is not turned over to the fanatics in the Democratic party for 4 more years.

Let’s see…free enterprise, smaller government, respect for life OR pro-death socialism. Boy…that’s a toughy…

 

[ishii]

The problem with talking to empty chairs is that the only voice you hear is your own.

On the contrary, the “voice” I paraphrased can be regularly heard on these forums - and its not my voice.

I ‘support’ Obama because he is more likely to do the most good overall. When voting for a candidate you must account not only for the positions they support but how likely they are to have an influence over them, either through action or through speech. Abortion is truly the greatest evil in our society, but their are others that come close, especially when you add them up. (These include but are not limited to rampant divorce, unjust wars, alcoholism and drug abuse, child abuse, discrimination, poverty, depression.) The calculus of voting is about multiplying the importance of the cause times the likelihood of the person affecting that cause and then summing them up.

You’re lumping together all sorts of unrelated issues - stick to the issue: Obama supports infanticide and you support Obama. Whether or not the president can single handedly curtail abortion, do you really want a president who supports the right to infanticide?

I judge the likeliness of either Obama or Romney having an effect on the abortion issue to be so small that its effect is smaller than lesser issues such as the others listed. For instance, if I recall correctly, the number of abortions in the US has decreased under the Obama administration.

So you’d have no problem with a KKK president as long as he couldn’t impose segregation on everyone?

Others have different opinions than I do, including other liberals and that is ok.

Whew! And here I thought it wasn’t okay to have different opinions - thanks for letting me know.

Ishii

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Please see my poll at the ‘moral theology’ forum. It may be misplaced, might be better under ‘Social Justice’.

Also, our tax system is already very very progressive… i.e. top heavy… I think that’s why those against further 'redistribution" via taxes have a legitimate argument. However, we do have a serious income distribution issue. There needs to be a better understanding of the root cause because “taxes” don’t appear to be the solution. We also have to be “competitive” with our taxes (and other things) since we do deal in a global economy, like it or not.

One not so savory hypothesis is that historically a small middle class is normal. (A necessary buffer between the haves and have nots) The haves and the have nots (mostly have nots) make up the majority. Market forces determine this and those forces, especially on a global playing field are bigger than any US policy. It is a conundrum, for sure. What we really need is for the quality of life for the entire world to be raised. Make them all good little consumers like we are, buying refrigerators, washers and driers, even having electricity and running water. Maybe they can all have the opportunity to become obese too. Wouldn’t that be something. But alas, we can’t make their governments “do the right things” any more than we can get our too (okay that was a little harsh). People have to “choose” to do the right things, not be coerced by their governments. That requires, education (especially the virtues and deadly sins), evangelization and enlightenment. It will be done, sooner or later.

I disagree with our tax system being progressive enough. If it was progressive enough would the gap between the rich and the poor be so big and still growing? President Obama makes around 20 times more than the median household and Mr. Romney makes around 20 times more than that. Mitt Romney may deserve all of his fortunes but is the average person’s value really 1/400th of his? Does Mr. Romney work 400 times harder or have 400 times more skill? (And Mr. Romney is hardly the richest person out there.)

Is our total tax system even progressive when you consider all of the tax loopholes and all of the taxes (and benefits) such as FICA, gasoline tax, sales taxes, state and local municipal taxes?

In any case, the economics is simple. Capitalism, as you seem to understand leads to haves and have-nots. It is a giant pump transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. Some money trickles down but the pumps of capitalism pump mostly up because those at the top have more power to design and operate those pumps. What we need are pumps pumping from the top back to the bottom and that are just as great as the ones that capitalism provides going from bottom to top. Once that happens money will flow again and all ships will rise with the rushing upward tide.

 

[austenbosten]

I disagree with our tax system being progressive enough. If it was progressive enough would the gap between the rich and the poor be so big and still growing? President Obama makes around 20 times more than the median household and Mr. Romney makes around 20 times more than that. Mitt Romney may deserve all of his fortunes but is the average person’s value really 1/400th of his? Does Mr. Romney work 400 times harder or have 400 times more skill? (And Mr. Romney is hardly the richest person out there.)

Is our total tax system even progressive when you consider all of the tax loopholes and all of the taxes (and benefits) such as FICA, gasoline tax, sales taxes, state and local municipal taxes?

In any case, the economics is simple. Capitalism, as you seem to understand leads to haves and have-nots. It is a giant pump transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. Some money trickles down but the pumps of capitalism pump mostly up because those at the top have more power to design and operate those pumps. What we need are pumps pumping from the top back to the bottom and that are just as great as the ones that capitalism provides going from bottom to top. Once that happens money will flow again and all ships will rise with the rushing upward tide.

Tony you seriously buy into that Marxist drivel? :ehh:

 

[Jeffrey]

I pray daily that obama is defeated so he doesn’t take money from hard working ppl and give it away to ppl that are able bodied but just don’t want to work and want a free ride.

No one shut us up, rLg. We simply much prefer Obama to the alternative of a nation being run by far right extremists. I pray daily our nation is not turned over to Romney bowing to a Republican Tea Party Congress.