Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Printable Version

+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Off topic (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked (/thread-9969.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Sebastian - 2012-09-22

Recently it was leaked a video taken secretly during a fundraiser event for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in the USA. It has sparked controversy due to several statements made by the candidate, that it seems he hadn't made publicly about several topics like voters, immigration, Palestine and many others.

Here you can see the video:

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters

And here the full transcript:

Full Transcript of the Mitt Romney Secret Video

Some snippets from the video:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."

"[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

"They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening."

Are these words too different from what Romney states in public? Do you agree with this? How do you think his words here will affect the vote of people who watch the videos or read the transcripts?

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - imabi - 2012-09-22

The statement has much truth in it. So many people in this country are becoming dependent on some form or more than one form of government assistance, and it is not a good trend. Furthermore, the leaked video is normally edited and cut to make the entire context out of the picture to make it sound worse, which happens on both sides．

He realized some of those statements will of bad taste, but he is right that a lot of those people wouldn't be voting for him anyways． However, I find his platform to be much better than Obama.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Surreal - 2012-09-22

Game, Set, Match.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - IceCream - 2012-09-22

@imabi:

This guy isn't dependant on any stoopid government. Looks like a fun life, eh...? (if you have time, please do watch it)

Can you explain to me how someone who doesn't believe in basic human rights and equality, as well as states bluntly that he is not interested in 47% of the population is a good choice for your country? I'm genuinely interested as to how anyone ends up at that conclusion.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - imabi - 2012-09-22

I think that statement highly far left and not true. For one, I haven't met a single Mormon in my life that has loose morals. They are the most faithful, well mannered group of people I've ever met. They are all well-off people for the most part that have gone from one/two generations of being chased about to some of the most successful people in this nation.

Your statements, although away from a political life I like you as a person IceCream, are rather stupid.

I think Obama's stances on so many foreign policy issues are disastrous. Look what's happened in Libya, the attack on one of our bases in Afghanistan, and other recent incidents that show how little is being done to give crucial intelligence to people in the greatest risk and then blaming it on a video that is not even the cause for most of this violence.

Befriending the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, who want to destroy Western Civilization from within and move the capital of Egypt to Jerusalem by annihilating the Jews/Israelis.

"Doesn't believe in basic human rights?" Who the hell in either party says that stuff? No one. That isn't a card to through at any candidate, liberal or conservative. Those are not the issues at play here. Believe it or not, there is a "hand-out" mentality in this nation. Government programs have done very little to solve the actual problems of poverty.

He didn't say he was interested in the well being of the 47%. He said he was probably not going to get the majority of their vote, which is true. It will be a close win for either candidate.

In this internet age, you can find shit for your liking to support any view, whether it meets reality or not. If you want to believe the economy is good, watch NBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc.. You wanna think the economy sucks, watch Fox news. Wanna know how the actual economy is. Read both sides, then read tons of actual economic articles and see what your actual community is like.

Things are bad.

Gas prices are still ridiculous
Utilities are still too high
People are still being laid off
People are earning less

These things especially hurt the poor and continues the cycle for many.

Things are better.

Gas prices used to be quite worse.
People used to be laid off in greater quantities
Some sectors are improving

Yet, overall there hasn't been any growth when accounting for population growth. We can thank Obama for things staying at the status quo, but it does take a lot of damage for things to actually go down hill anyways, and the business cycle pretty much proved in advance that the true recession wasn't going to last long anyways. Since the presidency doesn't have much control of economic affairs, it's really not his doing at all.

What instead we have is one of the largest national security threats for future decades to come: a debt so large that it would take a year for our entire GDP to pay it off. It needs to stop, and the excuse that he couldn't get anything done is wrong when his party was in control of both houses for 4 years.

Again, this is politics, and no need for anyone to get nasty. I just don't want blatant liberal or blatant conservative bull shit.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - IceCream - 2012-09-22

i was going to bother replying for a second, but i'm past it.

I'll leave you with Mitt Romney telling a gay person that he does not deserve equal rights with straight people.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - undead_saif - 2012-09-22

IceCream Wrote:@imabi:

This guy isn't dependant on any stoopid government. Looks like a fun life, eh...? (if you have time, please do watch it)

Can you explain to me how someone who doesn't believe in basic human rights and equality, as well as states bluntly that he is not interested in 47% of the population is a good choice for your country? I'm genuinely interested as to how anyone ends up at that conclusion.

I don't want to come out as rude or something and I'm not trying to offend you in anyway. From the little I've lived in this world I learned that issues of a country can sometimes (most of the time nowadays with all the propaganda) be ambiguous even to a large percent the nation itself, and so it becomes hard to take decisions or sides for the people of the country. Still, those who live in the event are actually the most informed about the situation, and people from the outside can hardly understand what's going on. So I think the Americans know better about their issues and I find it odd for an outsider to argue strongly about their problems.

*Yet again, I might be wrong...

Thanks for the link though, seems interesting, I'll be watching some of it.
--
*Edit

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - IceCream - 2012-09-22

I take your point, but I think you are wrong... who the president of the USA is affects the entire world, not just America. There is no way i'm not having an opinion on it, especially since I don't get a vote.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Surreal - 2012-09-22

undead_saif Wrote:
IceCream Wrote:@imabi:

This guy isn't dependant on any stoopid government. Looks like a fun life, eh...? (if you have time, please do watch it)

Can you explain to me how someone who doesn't believe in basic human rights and equality, as well as states bluntly that he is not interested in 47% of the population is a good choice for your country? I'm genuinely interested as to how anyone ends up at that conclusion.
I don't want to come out as rude or something and I'm not trying to offend you in anyway. From the little I've lived in this world I learned that issues of a country can sometimes (most of the time nowadays with all the propaganda) be ambiguous even to a large percent the nation itself, and so it becomes hard to take decisions or sides for the people of the country. Still, those who live in the event are actually the most informed about the situation, and people from the outside can hardly understand what's going on. So I think the Americans know better about their issues and I find it odd for an outsider to argue strongly about their problems.

*Yet again, I might be wrong...

Thanks for the link though, seems interesting, I'll be watching some of it.
--
*Edit

Firstly, foreign interest in domestic politics ought to be welcomed since it's better for one's country if foreigners are interested in it and so might learn more about it. Secondly, with all the cool internet-based media we have now, there's no requirement really to be in the country in question to be able to form a well-informed opinion regarding its politics - some Americans know more than some non-Americans about US politics, but some non-Americans know more than some Americans also. Outside input can help better decisions to be made as more varied viewpoints are introduced. Besides, the economy binds us all together so that national borders and the boundaries of what constitutes domestic/international issues become all the more hazy each day. Thirdly, the US has been and still is playing the role of "international police" so it is not strange at all for non-Americans to feel they have the right to strongly object to certain things that will have an effect on American foreign policies. So long as they US is going to act like it's entitled to profoundly influencing other countries' politics using forcible methods, the least they can do is to accept criticism and at least CONSIDER taking it into account.

Also I think that as a world citizen, no matter in what country it's being done, it should be A-OK to castigate those who use hate speech and/or promote violation of human rights and discrimination.

Edit: Icecream the video about the bin man is great, it's a really well-executed show built on a very cool concept. I was thoroughly blown away. Thanks for the link!

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - gaiaslastlaugh - 2012-09-22

undead_saif Wrote:So I think the Americans know better about their issues

Um, we elected Bush II to eight years in office. 'Nuff said.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - undead_saif - 2012-09-22

Surreal Wrote:Firstly, foreign interest in domestic politics ought to be welcomed since it's better for one's country if foreigners are interested in it and so might learn more about it.

I'm interested in other countries' politics, to a degree.

Surreal Wrote:Secondly, with all the cool internet-based media we have now, there's no requirement really to be in the country in question to be able form a well-informed opinion regarding its politics - some Americans know more than some non-Americans about US politics, but some non-Americans know more than some Americans also. Outside input can help better decisions to be made as more varied viewpoints are introduced.

I disagree, you can't understand everything unless you're an insider. Edit: Sometimes even living in a country can't unravel underlying issues, there are things that one cannot understand unless he/she lives with the people for a long time, things that lie in the corners and sometimes untouchable or unaddressed issues, etc..**

Surreal Wrote:Thirdly, the US has been and still is playing the role of "international police" so it is not strange at all for non-Americans to feel they have the right to strongly object to certain things that will have an effect on American foreign policies. So long as they US is going to act like it's entitled to profoundly influencing other countries' politics using forcible methods, the least they can do is to accept criticism and at least CONSIDER taking it into account.

I agree with your third point, no one can deny that. But I was replying to giving opinions about things that concern the US citizens.

Surreal Wrote:Also I think that as a world citizen, no matter in what country it's being done, it should be A-OK to castigate those who use hate speech and/or promote violation of human rights and discrimination.

Indeed, but outside interference* should be proportional to how bad things are, and those issues I think they can sort themselves, unlike what's happening in other countries.

Good reply nonetheless, thanks!

Edit: *wrong word changed Tongue

** added more

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Surreal - 2012-09-22

I do not see what I described lastly as "outside meddling". You and me think of nations, and the role that particular way of organizing the world should play, very differently. Still, I'm glad you accept my arguments as valid.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - IceCream - 2012-09-22

I changed my mind ^_^

imabi Wrote:I think that statement highly far left and not true. For one, I haven't met a single Mormon in my life that has loose morals. They are the most faithful, well mannered group of people I've ever met. They are all well-off people for the most part that have gone from one/two generations of being chased about to some of the most successful people in this nation.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Is he a Mormon? How absolutely irrelevent to the discussion.

imabi Wrote:I think Obama's stances on so many foreign policy issues are disastrous. Look what's happened in Libya, the attack on one of our bases in Afghanistan, and other recent incidents that show how little is being done to give crucial intelligence to people in the greatest risk and then blaming it on a video that is not even the cause for most of this violence.

Befriending the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, who want to destroy Western Civilization from within and move the capital of Egypt to Jerusalem by annihilating the Jews/Israelis.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot about Obama's foreign policies that I dislike. But the fact that he is capable of diplomacy is not one of them. I'm not sure if you are too young to remember Bush and his stance towards foreign policy, but it certainly wasn't diplomatic... it was actually pretty scary. It felt like there was a lot of hatred towards America during that time, because of the history, and because of the basic lack of respect shown to other cultures. I do think that's lessened a bit under Obama, mainly because he is capable of diplomacy. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that anything more than the surface has changed, it seems, in a lot of cases. Romney can't even seem to manage diplomacy in his own country though, and i very much doubt there would be anything other than the manufacturing of fear from him that has become Republican staple in America. Can you afford to have another war monger in power, both economically and politically?

imabi Wrote:"Doesn't believe in basic human rights?" Who the hell in either party says that stuff? No one. That isn't a card to through at any candidate, liberal or conservative. Those are not the issues at play here. Believe it or not, there is a "hand-out" mentality in this nation. Government programs have done very little to solve the actual problems of poverty.

And how are you expecting Romney to solve the "actual" problems of poverty? What's more likely is that he will simply cut government assistance to those most in need, and leave them floundering. Because at the most basic level, he believes that poverty is a choice that people make.

Romney might not state out loud that he doesn't believe in human rights, but he is openly anti-gay, and does not beleive that everyone has the right to health care. These things come straight out of his mouth. To me, this is absolutely basic. I don't see a hand out problem in your nation at all. I see places where people's basic human needs are still often not being met, and if you can't manage that in a society, why bother having a society at all? Obama actually went out and did something about the healthcare, that would change people's lives for the better.

imabi Wrote:He didn't say he was interested in the well being of the 47%. He said he was probably not going to get the majority of their vote, which is true. It will be a close win for either candidate.

It's implied.
"[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

imabi Wrote:Things are bad.

Gas prices are still ridiculous
Utilities are still too high

What you need, and the rest of the world needs, is a President who will lead on climate change, not offer subsidies to get more cheap carbon fuels. This situation is critical now. None of your candidates are willing to stick their necks out. All of us will pay.

imabi Wrote:Things are better.
People used to be laid off in greater quantities
Some sectors are improving

Yet, overall there hasn't been any growth when accounting for population growth. We can thank Obama for things staying at the status quo, but it does take a lot of damage for things to actually go down hill anyways, and the business cycle pretty much proved in advance that the true recession wasn't going to last long anyways. Since the presidency doesn't have much control of economic affairs, it's really not his doing at all.

Well, don't knock it till you've tried it. The Conservatives in Britain are doing an excellent job of keeping us in recession (now we're double dip!!) with it's austerity policy, even though all available evidence shows that there is a negative correlation between austerity and growth. This should be obvious to anybody who thinks about it for more than two seconds.

imabi Wrote:What instead we have is one of the largest national security threats for future decades to come: a debt so large that it would take a year for our entire GDP to pay it off. It needs to stop, and the excuse that he couldn't get anything done is wrong when his party was in control of both houses for 4 years.

Most of the developed world is in this situation right now. The way the banks were dealt with is criminal imo, both in America and in Europe. They should have been left to go bust, and the government to bail out the people, not the banks. But now you have to be smart about paying back. The person who starves himself to death trying to pay back a loan isn't smart. Sometimes things actually do just take some time.

@Surreal: i'm glad you liked it!!!! Yeah, i find a lot of these types of things can be patronising, but the concept really makes that one different, i think. i recommend the miner one next Wink

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - pm215 - 2012-09-22

I think from Europe Romney looks particularly implausible because from our perspective the US election is between a central-to-right-wing and a really-right-wing candidate. (For instance, a survey back in August found that 92% of the French and 73% of the British wanted Obama reelected.)

It's impossible for outside viewers to look at US politics except through the lens of their local politics, I think; but as Surreal suggests this can itself be an advantage, since you get different points of view that way. On the other hand some of the most unproductive arguments are when the points of view are too far separated. Examples that spring to mind include gun control and healthcare reform: I think it's bonkers that you don't have an equivalent of the NHS and I wouldn't be surprised if you felt similarly about the way UK police don't routinely carry guns...

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Surreal - 2012-09-22

On the other hand, some discourse between those who hold very separate views can lead to changes in opinion. I used to hold the belief that gun control is the way to go, but because I happened upon a discussion about that (on the Penny-Arcade forums) and was interested I came to understand the situation in the US much better and that there are a lot of mechanics in play that mean heavy-handed gun control doesn't seem feasible - not leastly because the US has too many damn guns already so there's basically no good way to get it out of the hands of criminals. The problem isn't viewpoints that are very separate - an unwillingness to listen to others' viewpoints is, on both sides. Europeans would do well to understand more about US politics before expressing very strong opinions - as would many Americans, and of course many Europeans should understand more about their own countries' politics and the EU too. But the interest itself and the want for discourse I see as something good. And I'd rather have people expressing somewhat ignorant opinions so they can be discussed than saying nothing at all and staying ignorant.

@Icecream: I liked it when they let Imaam(sp?), the Indonesian bin man, talk directly to the camera about the Brit, I think it's the first time I've seen any show like this do that and I wish they'd used it more.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - prink - 2012-09-22

Mitt Romney is a power hungry sociopath. If any supporter of his wants to point out what he'll do, in terms of policy, to make this country better, I'd love to see it. Have fun looking, because it doesn't exist. As for Americans becoming dependent on the government, Romney had the same health care plan as Obama for starters. At this point, if you look at actual policy, all Romney is going to do is rip out the so-called "safety net" and give that money to the rich.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Obama either. But Romney is so much worse than Obama we have no choice but to reelect him. It's no different from last election, except this time we know Obama is full of shit.

Also, http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/a15q18/key-and-peele-obama-s-anger-translator---the-47-

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - Sebastian - 2012-09-22

prink Wrote:Mitt Romney is a power hungry sociopath.

I think some of you will find this article interesting:

Psychopath Cowboys; Sociopath Herds: A New Theory of How Evil Happens

Quote:If you want a simple but accurate explanation for why civilization so often veers toward evil, here's a theory worth considering: Psychopaths are overrepresented in positions of power and they make sociopaths out of large numbers of us.

Quote:Our deference explains why psychopaths are over-represented in positions of power. By their nature psychopaths have no conscience and will fight as dirty as they can get away with fighting. This gives them an enormous edge in competition.

Just think how your fortunes would rise in any game if you could cheat and your opponent couldn't. A psychopath's fortunes would rise in game play too but not nearly so much as they rise in politics.

In games the line between fair and unfair play is well defined so it's easy to spot cheaters. In politics the line is fuzzier which makes it harder to spot cheaters, easier to cheat, and easier for the psychopath to defend himself by pleading ignorance and self-defense saying, "I don't think I crossed the line and anyway I think my opponent crossed it so, if I got close to the line it was merely in self defense."

Quote:Hitler accused his opposition of conspiring to take over the world. Stalin purged millions of opponents for being self serving and morally corrupt. Joseph McCarthy accused people of undermining our Democracy. I'm confident that every psychopathic leader in modern history has employed the formula.

Add to that Chuck Norris and wife accusing people who vote for Obama of leading their country to "socialism or something much worse" and a "thousand years of darkness". Add to that, now, Romney accusing his opponents of making him look as a vile person.

Quote:Al Franken's highly informative (though also entertaining) detailed analysis of corruption among those who have taken over the Republican Party in the past few decades.

*Karl Rove makes a point of attacking opponents not on their weaknesses but on their strengths, for example when Bush, a draft dodger was at a disadvantage against Kerry, a decorated military hero, Rove attacked Kerry on his military record. For a more detailed analysis see, Karl Rove’s Playbook summarized here:

1. Take the Offensive
2. Attack Your Opponent's Strengths
3. Accuse Your Opponent of What He/She is Going to Accuse You Of
4. Go Negative, Then Cry Foul
5. Tell One Big Lie
6. Appeal to Moral Values
7. Sell on Persona
8. Sell an Adolescent Worldview
9. Exploit the Media
10. Create Straw Issues
11. Employ Surrogates
12 Use Emotional Appeals
13. Rely on Expert Testimonials
14. Use Rhetorical Devices

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - imabi - 2012-09-22

Oh yes, enact "green" policies that cause electricity projects to necessarily sky rocket. I believe that is a direct quote from our commander in chief. I hope to God electricity bills don't climb. Besides, many people forget that if the ice caps melt that will disrupt the fragile jet streams and actually cause the temperature of most of Europe and parts of North America to drop at least 20 degrees like it did at the start of the last glaciation. It's a repeating cycle of course.

One, icecream, Romney is a Mormon. If you didn't know that, you're stupid. Two, it is not irrelevant. His religious views shape his ideology as for anyone else. It is against his creed to support same-sex marriage, and that is not a farfetched position whether you agree with it or not. I don't equivocate disagreeing with that and the rejecting of human rights of gay people. America has the best tolerance for gay people in the world. Most other countries would have such people stoned believe it or not. So, enough with that. Like with all other social changes in America, it will take time for the society accept those changes. It may not be for another 30 or so years, but you can't rush things through because that would cause unnecessary social stress.

Apparently this place is full of liberals. However, this place is about Japanese, which I would rather it just be about. I watch, read, and listen to both sides and have come to my own conclusions. If you don't do the same, then your opinions are less credible.

1． Mitt Romney is not an evil man. He is a very devout member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, and these people are by far the most moral people you can find. Whether you agree with their doctrine or not, they raise good families and make sure their families and businesses prosper. His family lived in Mexico for some time, and so he has been able to see what it is like on the other side of the poverty line. He was almost killed in a horrible car crash in Paris while he was serving his church, like all Mormon do in or right after their freshmen year of college, and came back in America into the business world where he has done his jobs ethically, legally, and properly. Whether we like what he did as a job is an individual position that should be respected but at the same able to be probed and debated.

2. Mitt Romney, as well as Barack Obama, are not psychopaths. Rather, they are the results of two different people of two different ideologies that came from the same integrated society we call America. Not only have they been the result of this system, but we are all, in regards to Americans, and we all are different in ideologies.

3. The Republican party, for the most part and for what is in the actual platform, is not in support of active legislative movements to right into law social regulations. The Constitution has never been used--except prohibition--been a document to limit the rights of anyone. So, whether it be a Republican, Democrat, or third party controlled Congress, no new amendments will reach finalization that would even touch sensitive social issues. These social issues will be resolved by the people.

4. Women's rights is an issue that is brought up all the time. Yet, it is a fallacy to say that there is a war on women. There are just as many liberal women as there are conservative women, and when a liberal says the conservatives are waging a war on women, they are lying and insulting the other 50% of women on the other side of the fence. Rather, the issues are two that are based on one's personal moral beliefs. There really isn't much that can be done about this, and party affiliation actually determines little on whether you are pro-life or pro-choice or whether you are an activist for either groups. Many Republicans do happen to be pro-life, as myself, but not all Republicans seek reform to turn over Row vs Wade. This issue, though, is not to be contended in any new session of Congress any time soon. If you think so, you're worrying over nothing. Look how little gets done anyways. Contraception is another issue, and it is true that there are health benefits aside from contraception itself that such things provide, but again, when you do have a large portion of the country that do not agree with this on moral grounds, you can't force those people to support it via their money because that would be infringing on their liberties.

5. Liberty is not infinite. There is positive and negative liberty. During the course of American history, one side gained more support than the other. This balance of power would eventually cause the Civil War and all other strife in our nation's history as will be the case here on out.

6. The UK got itself in shit because you guys don't know how to quit spending money you don't have like every other European country. You guys should have started having more children earlier on to fund the programs for the aging population. Japan's finding that out the hard way.

7. Bush's foreign policy record is not the best, but we've had far worse presidents in this area. Here are some issues where Obama has done poorly.

1. Senkaku Islands
2. Libya
3. Afghanistan withdrawal strategy. I personally wouldn't announce to everyone when we'd leave even if it did get leaked eventually.
4. Touting there is no more problem with Al Qaeda just because Bin Laden is dead.
5. Giving aid to the Muslim Brotherhood.
6. Not meeting with Israeli Prime Minister on several occasions.
7. etc.

8. The list of Bush may very well be lengthy, but many of the reactions of 9/11 were supported by the American majority, and as a president, governor, mayor, or any similar leader, should try to do if at all possible what the masses want done, and most people were convinced of things such as "weapons of mass destruction". I contend that those weapons could have easily been hidden in many locations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and many other nations hostile.

9. The Middle East is never going to like America Ice Cream. It is the intent of the extremists in these regions to destroy Western Civilization altogether from within, and that includes European targets as well. Iran wants to kill all infidels, and we both are considered one. This ideology, which not all Muslims adhere to do be fair, is propagated throughout the region and it is this that has led to the strife and attacks at our embassies that have been going on way before both administrations being discussed here thus far. Things have not improved in the Middle East for American relationships anyways. If anything, they have only gotten worse. The society there has to change for that to happen, and these dictators are only being replaced by religious factions. The developing new governments, with exception to Libya, are not becoming secularized as we had all hoped.

10. Now I will try to the best of my ability lay out in a fair and balanced way what I think is awesome and bull shit about the Republican ideals that Mitt Romney is running on.

1. Corporate income tax. As we know, Mitt Romney only pays 14% in taxes. However, he is technically unemployed and he gets money off of bonds and what not that he received from previous titles, and this is the law of the land, and he is only doing what he has to like all other rich people, well people for that matter because I haven't met a person in my life that pays more in taxes than they have to.

America already has the largest corporate tax rate in the world. It is one of the primary reasons why so many jobs are outsourced to competitors like China. China is our biggest rival. The problem is more complex than just business people having to pay more to hire workers in America. China manipulates her currency and work force to make it produce to its maximum. America was like this not so long ago during the Industrial Revolution. Your large corporations do have a moral problem for wanting to go where the money is, but that's really what people have done since society began. So, again, the society would really have to change to change this problem of wealth. Yet, it is in theory possible for any man or woman born in America to rise to this position, and it does happen all the time. Many people do get left behind, and as a society, America is quite philanthropic. Yet, people still get left in the cracks. But, what can you really do? No candidate will be able to fix THIS issue.

Concerning corporate income tax again, I would leave it as is. If we lower it like Romney wants, it is undeniable that some businesses will begin to add more jobs into America, and many businesses promise to do so if such legislation goes through. So, during this time when 15% of the able bodied population doesn't have a job, that is good for the country in the short term. The revenues won't change that drastically anyways if it was lowered even just a few percent points because the added growth of the job market and the rise in population will sustain the initial technical drop in funds.

This is their thinking, and it does have sound economic basis even if you disagree with it because there is no right answer in economics because you really don't find out until it's already happened.

When Republicans say they want to get rid of regulations, they aren't talking about the regulations that were put in place in the Progressive era that provided us safe meat, the beginnings of safe air policy, etc., they are talking about regulations that do stifle growth that many people on both parties agree are unnecessary. What Republicans want to do, and some Democrats as well although perhaps not to the same degree as Republicans, is go through all of the federal codes and see what is truly ridiculous and get rid of them. There are some regulations that are business in nature but actually hurt individual Americans, and documentaries are talked about all the time. For example, there is an agriculture district in California that is being killed by the government not allowing water to channeled there due to the risk of causing a local lizard from being extinct. People should come first instead of lizards. I'm sorry. 99% of all existing species on the Earth have died out, and we're next anyways so it doesn't matter.

Republicans also, despite what Democrats normally say, do want to add more regulations and reform, just in different ways. However, despite what Republicans say, for what I have seen and can't elaborate without making fallacies until more further research is done, is that they are not completely different philosophies. After all, the positions of both parties do not differ that much at all, considering for the fact that most people of both parties are not ideologues but moderates.

There is Libertarian wing of the Republican party you know. These people do have some influence on the party, but normally in matters of foreign policy do they ever get attention. The legalization of drugs and the removal of troops in foreign countries. These are shared by many progressives alike. As part of the actual Republican platform, that hasn't happened yet. However, it does not stray from "individual freedoms" that the Republican party has stood for since its conception.

As I prefaced this, there is a balance between positive and negative liberties. Mitt Romney is of a Christian faith that does not condone same-sex marriage, but I don't believe he would actually as president would make that law. After all, he was the governor of Massachusetts. Rather, these social issues will become pocket issues. The Supreme Court has already technically legalized same sex marriage anyways. He has already said, as is a concept originally created by the Democratic party, that these issues should be handled by the individual states. He personally would like those states to reconsider because his personal opinion on the issue, which anyone of that like mind would agree and those that don't should agree that those people have the right to think so. However, no president, Obama or Romney, is going to anytime soon tread on states' rights issues.

11. Other issues. I will bring up gun rights since it was alluded to by a European user. My roommate is Norwegian and he asked me my opinion on guns. Although personally I too would like guns to be gone and have them only accessible for hunting and those limited as well, as the Constitution has it, we are allowed to have them. So, I will stand by the law of the land. I understand why that right is there because we live in a society were guns aren't going away. There are too many of them, and there's really no plausible way to change that. In European countries where many weapons were destroyed or confiscated after WWII, such no-gun policies are very plausible and very effective. However, there are many Americans that believe it is for the best interests to have a gun for self-protection. It does save innocent people from senseless death all the time. Do people kill others with guns? Yes, that's what guns were invented for after all. However, if people want to really kill others, they'll find other ways to do it. Shooting someone is actually the easiest way to do without torturing them.

This should not be equivocated with "moral relativism". No killing of a human being should be tolerated, but we do live in a world of 6 billion people and of many different backgrounds, and we don't have the capability to make man work only for his better good yet. So, they're here to stay for now.

12. Karl Rove may indeed use the points, but as a political science professor said on campus the other day, both sides do it everyday. Some of the attacks on both sides are absolutely true, and it's a shame that the public doesn't have the guts to call them out on it to make true change. Rather than recognizing those faults, both sides continue on believing their side is completely perfect.

13. I have heard Karl Rove several times, but I don't consider him totally radical. His takes on why things are may definitely be extreme and often actually are, but the underlining problems are often real problems, just not the severity he makes them out to be.

14. Surreal, although you and I may definitely disagree on things, your last comment was brilliantly written.

15. Manufacturing of fear, I think the liberals are more guilty of that to be honest. The war on women, which I discussed earlier, the war on latinos, etc. Many people, not just Republicans, think that things are going to continue to get worse. I don't believe it's even possible for America to deteriorate to "The Great Depression"-like conditions, so that is a proper critique of my party.

16. Again, this thread is meant to political, but I don't think anyone would should leave this thread hating me or anyone else. I've been honest, tried to be fair and balanced, and I personally think my party is dead wrong on handling social issues. I just find a lot of the rest of their ideas better. However, no matter who becomes president, not much is going to change in either direction so we all shouldn't worry that much.

On a last tidbit, I am finally having my site proofread by natives and have already made tons of changes and added tons of notes and approved, checked, example sentences. I'm still trying to major changes to it. I never forgot your great help IceCream! I'll always be thankful for it. So, I'll leave you guys with that.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - kitakitsune - 2012-09-22

[Image: 3dxUT.gif]

....

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - imabi - 2012-09-22

Well, you didn't read my response. However, you are free to make those gestures.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - onafarm - 2012-09-22

imabi Wrote:... the attack on one of our bases in Afghanistan ...

But that's a good thing. After all, the US invaded the country.

If I was an Afghan I'd be attacking your bases too.

Quote:Mitt Romney is not an evil man. He is a very devout member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, and these people are by far the most moral people you can find

'Most moral'? The are the most bigoted god botherers I've ever come across.

Quote:The list of Bush may very well be lengthy, but many of the reactions of 9/11 were supported by the American majority, and as a president, governor, mayor, or any similar leader, should try to do if at all possible what the masses want done, and most people were convinced of things such as "weapons of mass destruction"

You seem to have confused 'democracy' with 'what the masses want done'. The masses were not privy to the realms of intelligence available to Bush and his cabinet which pretty much put the lie to the WMD fable.

I think that will do me now, there's too much of your stuff to wade through.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - imabi - 2012-09-22

That opinion about Afghanistan is very radical. I don't think most Democrats would condone that. We are there for good intentions. We are not there for the reasons the Russians went there.

I've been in many Mormon households. They do not drink, they do not smoke, they raise their children well, they make sure they have good educations, and they work for their church and stay faithful. That is very honorable.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - yudantaiteki - 2012-09-22

[Image: tumblr_m9pc4elItO1resz14o1_400.jpg]

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - yudantaiteki - 2012-09-22

I'm not going to bother with your huge screed because it's way too long, but here's an exact transcript of Romney's 47% remark:

Quote:There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

This is much more than just a statement that we need entitlement reform. I think many people, myself (voting Democrat) included, believe that. I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul's financial positions (for instance), even though I don't agree with him on everything and don't think I would ever vote for him.

These are the problems with his statement:
1. The 47% includes people like retirees living off of social security, which is a typically Republican voting bloc. The three largest "handout" programs are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Two of those three are targeted at the elderly. Food stamps and such are a drop in the bucket in comparison. (SS is somewhat different from other programs, but the way it is funded and controlled still makes it basically an entitlement program.)
2. It's insulting to characterize anyone who receives government benefits as lacking personal responsibility or believing they are victims. It's also hypocritical because you can't say on the one hand that the high unemployment is the President's fault, but then characterize those unemployed people receiving government benefits as lazy or lacking responsibility.
3. He implies that some people are not entitled to food (much less housing or health care). The right to life doesn't just mean anti-abortion; people can't enjoy that right to life if they can't eat or have to sleep on the streets. They want to say that a poor mother cannot have an abortion, but then doesn't have the right to food or shelter to help the baby once it's born.
4. Although he specifics that the people pay no income tax, his claim that the "message of low taxes" won't connect seems to indicate that he's making the usual wrong connection that no income taxes means no taxes at all -- but in fact everyone pays sales tax, and most people pay payroll tax, the latter of which is often in the discussion of lowering taxes.
5. He says that it's not his job to "worry" about people who are voting for Obama -- the context here clearly shows that he's not just saying he can't get their votes, but that he's sort of washing his hands of them entirely.

It's an insulting statement laden with falsehoods, and shows his inner contempt for people who weren't born with the advantages he has.

Private video of private Romney Fundraiser leaked - onafarm - 2012-09-22

imabi Wrote:That opinion about Afghanistan is very radical. I don't think most Democrats would condone that.

I didn't say (nor do I care) what Democrats might or might not condone. I offered my view.

Quote:We are there for good intentions. We are not there for the reasons the Russians went there.

Killing, raping and mutilating Afghans are certainly 'good intentions'. Right.

Quote:I've been in many Mormon households. They do not drink, they do not smoke, they raise their children well, they make sure they have good educations, and they work for their church and stay faithful. That is very honorable.

I drink. I enjoy a good Cuban cigar from time to time. Am I therefore dishonourable?

'Stay faithful', huh? Let's check it out ...

Quote:Overall, the Mormon divorce rate appears to be no different from the average American divorce rate. A 1999 study by Barna Research of nearly 4,000 U.S. adults showed that 24% of Mormon marriages end in divorce — a number statistically equal to the divorce rate among all Americans. Members of non-denominational churches (typically Fundamentalist in teaching) and born-again Christians experience a significantly higher divorce rate; Agnostics and Atheists have much a lower rate.

This (sic.) data is supported by an earlier study the National Survey of Families and Households. It found that about 26% of both Mormons and non-Mormons had experienced at least one divorce at some time during their life.

And just do a little searching on Mormons and alcoholism ... it's enlightening.