If you had to choose Obama or Romney

[Excelsior]

I just watched the whole 50 minute segment

It's really not that bad if you watch it end-to-end. He's not some demon come to persecute as all, nor does he really strike me as the epitome of hypocrisy...

I'm tired of watching conservatives and/or their sympathizers attempt to underplay the significance of these statements and/or behave as though they are being taken out of context.

Romney wrote off half of the American population and much of his own base. That is fact-his words cannot be taken any other way, and if this is unclear to you you can re-read the quotes themselves. He insulted them and claimed that he has no intention of working for them or worrying about them. This is a man who is asking to be president, blatantly writing off, mischaracterizing and insulting half of the American population.

That's not persecution, I'll agree, but it isn't something I'd be happy to see in the leader of our country-someone who shows visible contempt for and a total inability to relate to HALF of the nation he wants to run.

There is no sugarcoating his statements.

If he does not strike you as the epitome of hypocrisy, then you are clearly seeing what you would like to see. The facts are there: this is a man whose own father was a beneficiary of welfare, proceeding to shit on those who benefit from government help today.
As if that hypocrisy is not enough, he also shows that he does not understand his own base-he claims that this 47% is for Obama, when in fact a large chunk of them are pro-Romney. He also forgets that they pay other taxes, thus ensuring that most are not in fact the freeloaders he seems to think they are.

Sure, not every statement in that video was bad. Having listened to it, I'm sure he was much more agreeable on other aspects of his presentation.
But what he said about the 47% was inexcusable, and this absolutely deserves every bit of condemnation it is getting. Nobody is exaggerating that.

Obama fires off plenty of stuff that is just as bad, and that can be, when taken out of context, equally reprehensible.

So you're saying that if we take Obama out of context, we can get something about as bad?

Ignoring the fact that Romney has not been taken out of context here (we don't need to misinterpret his shit to know that it is shit), have you seen Obama write off and insult HALF of the electorate (including much of his own base) and explicitly state his own lack of concern for them?

If so, show me. I'm not buying your equivocation until you do.

 

[Samseau]

Because Obama's never said anything stupid...

"We cannot, and will not, sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, in Washington these few years, we cannot simply spend as we please, and defer the consequences to the next budget, next administration, or the next generation."

"That's why today, I'm pledging to cut the budget we inherited by half, by the end of my first term."

 

[Excelsior]

Because Obama's never said anything stupid...

"We cannot, and will not, sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, in Washington these few years, we cannot simply spend as we please, and defer the consequences to the next budget, next administration, or the next generation."

"That's why today, I'm pledging to cut the budget we inherited by half, by the end of my first term."

And I'm sure you'll find plenty more silliness from Obama (57 states, Hawaii is in Asia, etc) and a few more broken promises. Even his most loyal supporters have taken issue with his work. As an independent (one of those 5-10% Romney says he "must convince"), I can see Obama's flaws from a mile away. You don't have to inform me.

What we have from Romney is beyond merely "stupid". It goes beyond an unkept campaign promise or a silly gaffe.
We have him calmly, lucidly shitting on half of the population, and doing so without any factual basis (he uses total mischaracterizations, actually) or even a hint of compassion. We have him showing flat out contempt for HALF of the population he seeks to gain authority over, and for many of the people who've thrown their support behind him (poor/lower middle class whites, the elderly, etc). And, in the process, he confirmed nearly every stereotype that's out there about him (out of touch, elitist, etc).

You can search high and low, but I doubt you will find anything on that kind of damaging level. This is an epic clusterfuck, and no amount of attempted equivocation will change that.

And, again, if Republicans insist on ignoring this and defending such utter elitist insanity, then they fully deserve what they will get in November-a solid defeat. You have a shitty candidate who has made an awful, inexcusable speech-there are no ways around that.

 

[bacon]

back in 2004 it was bush vs john kerry both were multimillonaires that went to yale and part of skull and bones society. if that wasnt a cue that presidents are chosen not elected i dont know what is.
these idoits who love obama or romney need to accept the fact that all presidents have their top positions coming from 2 small organizations which are the council on foreign relations and or the trilateral commission. if the member of the white house are coming from the same two organizations consistently why would anyone think things will change

 

[Capitán Peligroso]

"That's why today, I'm pledging to cut the budget we inherited by half, by the end of my first term."

What he said was "deficit" not "budget." That refers to the annual shortfall, not the annual government spending "budget" or the total amount we owe to our creditors (mostly to ourselves, but I digress) AKA "debt"

Based on the numbers, it looks like we're not going to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Realistically, it's going to be more like 1/3 (part of the reason for this is the temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts which helped kick the deficit reduction can down the road). But the bottom line is that we have to grow our way out of these deficits, not cut our way out of them. Romney knows how to drink your milkshake; he doesn't know how to make the milkshake bigger. Or if he does, his policy prescriptions certainly don't reflect it.

 

[EisenBarde]

How do we grow our economy while simultaneously crippling our energy sector? If Iraq was about oil then was Afghanistan about rare earth metals?

 

[Pete]

I do not live in the US. But the US needs to work with its debt. It's astounding how it's bigger than its GDP.

 

[ElJefe]

I'm tired of watching conservatives and/or their sympathizers attempt to underplay the significance of these statements and/or behave as though they are being taken out of context.

Romney wrote off half of the American population and much of his own base. That is fact-his words cannot be taken any other way, and if this is unclear to you you can re-read the quotes themselves. He insulted them and claimed that he has no intention of working for them or worrying about them. This is a man who is asking to be president, blatantly writing off, mischaracterizing and insulting half of the American population.

That's not persecution, I'll agree, but it isn't something I'd be happy to see in the leader of our country-someone who shows visible contempt for and a total inability to relate to HALF of the nation he wants to run.

There is no sugarcoating his statements.

If he does not strike you as the epitome of hypocrisy, then you are clearly seeing what you would like to see. The facts are there: this is a man whose own father was a beneficiary of welfare, proceeding to shit on those who benefit from government help today.
As if that hypocrisy is not enough, he also shows that he does not understand his own base-he claims that this 47% is for Obama, when in fact a large chunk of them are pro-Romney. He also forgets that they pay other taxes, thus ensuring that most are not in fact the freeloaders he seems to think they are.

Sure, not every statement in that video was bad. Having listened to it, I'm sure he was much more agreeable on other aspects of his presentation.
But what he said about the 47% was inexcusable, and this absolutely deserves every bit of condemnation it is getting. Nobody is exaggerating that.

Obama fires off plenty of stuff that is just as bad, and that can be, when taken out of context, equally reprehensible.

So you're saying that if we take Obama out of context, we can get something about as bad?

Ignoring the fact that Romney has not been taken out of context here (we don't need to misinterpret his shit to know that it is shit), have you seen Obama write off and insult HALF of the electorate (including much of his own base) and explicitly state his own lack of concern for them?

If so, show me. I'm not buying your equivocation until you do.

Sure, the whole you didn't build that deal. And what difference does it make if you write of the whole electorate or just one individual? Injustice is injustice no matter what. Just because Obama likes to blame Wall St and Bush for everything when it's just as much Greenspan's or essentially democratic policies that is at the fault.

Oh by and large I agree with you. I also think condemning people for words is a mindless exercise, it's just words. What's the actual policy proposal?

I also think there's a fundamental philosophical divide - for instance, Ryan wants to reform Medicare and at his talk to AARP he was booed. Not good politics, of course, but it's undeniable that entitlement programs are the source of our demise unless we dramatically increase tax-levels. The baby-boomers are going to suck this country dry and either we raise taxes in the order of trillions to balance the budget, or we adjust the rate at which these entitlements are increasing to fix that.

Proposing this idea pisses old white people off. They did NOT have enough kids to support these programs, and now they are not prepared to pay the price. All that government is doing is decoupling responsibility from consequence. That is the essence of the Romney message, and it sounds tough and unkind when put in those stark terms.

Now as for his hypocrisy, he's not being too thoughtful. But who is thoughtful all the time on all occasions, huh? The same way pouncing on Obama for his redistribution comment was dumb, I think this 47 percent stuff is dumb. I think redistribution is somewhat necessary, and I also think entitlement mentailty is a real challenge.

Obviously, welfare is not always bad and low taxes not always good. But when elected, I doubt he'd demolish all welfare and entitlement. I haven't heard anyone propose completely abolishing welfare programs yet.

What Romney said was not too clever, but the other stuff he said at that talk was rather insightful, especially his campaign strategy. what's going on right now is that people are going beserk over words, but what does he really mean, and is what HE thinks that much worse than what Obama thinks? If you think policy is interesting, one can read his book and/or just look at his homepage, objectively review his suggestions and proposals, and make an assessment. I have, and I don't think it's too bad. And I grew up in Scandinavia!