Say Romney does win--he wants to inspire lower income families to improve their own status, just like any progressive leader does. Are messages like that really the way to do it?

 

I just wonder how my own history would be different if Thatcher had said "Forget it, you'll never be able to afford buying out your council house anyway."

 

That's why he didn't say it in public lol.

He's defended the comments in public.

Within context, I can't say that was a bad statement at all. He merely said what we already know: he is focusing on undecided voters. It's when you take his "47%" figure out of context and start assuming what he'll do about it that things go awry.

 

Then again, when does that not happen in politics?

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the question that Romney was answering has been released:

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h48O9lyB9Vo

 

 

 

And Romney's defense:

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zlElm-2Oeg&feature=endscreen

 

 

I don't see anything too unreasonable about the claims. I'm not sure how factual the "47% of americans pay no income tax bit", but it's entirely true that there is a large portion of the population that will realistically never vote for him, just as there is a large portion of the population that will never vote for obama. The middle ground is where pretty much all elections are won, he's just stating the obvious.

Logically, and in context, Romney is correct. A politically astute observer will tell you that Romney shouldn't have been the one to say it. What I predict is going to happen is that political commentators in the media, along with ads from the Obama campaign are going to take this completely out of context and continue to harp on it.

 

In context: I'm not going to campaign to people who aren't going to vote for me.

Out of context: I don't care about half of America (or special interest x, y, z).

 

Probably. Such is politics...

 

Governor Romney discusses his love for "sport" as well as knowing NASCAR owners (not being able to name a single driver). Meanwhile, President Obama is out having beers with sports bar patrons and pizza shop owners, and shows his support for his hometown team, the Chicago Bears--who totally suck.

 

Which one will Americans identify better with? I wonder. It really is an empty way to get a vote, but it goes a long way in making the President seem down to earth. Hell, Governor Romney can't even have a beer.

 

The bears are better than the vikings looool (assuming you're a vikings fan if you're from minny)

 

I'm a vikings fan tbh :(

Dude, really? I go to school in Minnesota but I am a born and raised Wisconsinite. I bleed Green and Gold.

"All Americans have a prosperous future [...] a free nation of people pursuing their dreams."

...

"It's not my job to worry about them, I'll never convince [the 47% of Americans not paying income tax] to take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Once again, we do not have that full clip.

 

Obama is going to win this thing regardless, but I'm still going to vote for Romney.

Dude, really? I go to school in Minnesota but I am a born and raised Wisconsinite. I bleed Green and Gold.

 

Ahh ok so I guess it's fair to say the bears suck then...

He never called them taxless workers, or leaches lol. He said they pay no income tax...

 

Here is a transcript of what he said:

 

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% 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 they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it...These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll (President Obama) 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. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not."

 

 

Looks like whoever wins will be dealing with Republican majorities in both chambers: http://www.electionp...president12.php

 

I'd say it looks more like a Rep. house and a Dem. senate. Elizabeth Warren is ahead in the last 5 polls in MA, the latest WI and VA polls show the race either tied or favoring the Dem. candidate, Ohio and Florida have solid Dem. leads, and even Montana and Indiana look close.

He never called them taxless workers, or leaches lol. He said they pay no income tax...

 

Here is a transcript of what he said:

 

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% 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 they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it...These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll (President Obama) 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. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not."

 

 

Looks like whoever wins will be dealing with Republican majorities in both chambers: http://www.electionp...president12.php

 

 

I'd say it looks more like a Rep. house and a Dem. senate. Elizabeth Warren is ahead in the last 5 polls in MA, the latest WI and VA polls show the race either tied or favoring the Dem. candidate, Ohio and Florida have solid Dem. leads, and even Montana and Indiana look close.

 

I know exactly what he said. And nowhere in that quote does he call anyone a "taxless worker" or a "leech".

He never called them taxless workers, or leaches lol. He said they pay no income tax...

 

Here is a transcript of what he said:

 

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% 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 they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it...These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll (President Obama) 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. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not."

 

 

Looks like whoever wins will be dealing with Republican majorities in both chambers: http://www.electionp...president12.php

 

 

I'd say it looks more like a Rep. house and a Dem. senate. Elizabeth Warren is ahead in the last 5 polls in MA, the latest WI and VA polls show the race either tied or favoring the Dem. candidate, Ohio and Florida have solid Dem. leads, and even Montana and Indiana look close.

 

I know exactly what he said. And nowhere in that quote does he call anyone a "taxless worker" or a "leech".

The way I'm reading the bolded lines are "do what you want, this is America after all!", not "get out of my [bleep]ing country, you leeches!"

He never called them taxless workers, or leaches lol. He said they pay no income tax...

 

Here is a transcript of what he said:

 

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% 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 they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it...These are people who pay no income tax, 47% of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll (President Obama) 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. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not."

 

 

Looks like whoever wins will be dealing with Republican majorities in both chambers: http://www.electionp...president12.php

 

 

I'd say it looks more like a Rep. house and a Dem. senate. Elizabeth Warren is ahead in the last 5 polls in MA, the latest WI and VA polls show the race either tied or favoring the Dem. candidate, Ohio and Florida have solid Dem. leads, and even Montana and Indiana look close.

 

I know exactly what he said. And nowhere in that quote does he call anyone a "taxless worker" or a "leech".

The way I'm reading the bolded lines are "do what you want, this is America after all!", not "get out of my [bleep]ing country, you leeches!"

 

Romney is painting nearly half the country as irresponsible and self entitled. How you see that as him preaching freedom is beyond me.

Romney is painting nearly half the country as irresponsible and self entitled. How you see that as him preaching freedom is beyond me.

Being dependent on others is the opposite of being free.

Oh freedom, that wonderful concept that people love to depend on. Look. If there is law, there is no freedom. Only the consequences of breaking the law dictate our actions.

Oh freedom, that wonderful concept that people love to depend on. Look. If there is law, there is no freedom. Only the consequences of breaking the law dictate our actions.

I'm going to have to say that John Locke was a better philosopher, and disagree with you.

So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom.

Dude, really? I go to school in Minnesota but I am a born and raised Wisconsinite. I bleed Green and Gold.

 

Ahh ok so I guess it's fair to say the bears suck then...

Yeah, [bleep] the Bears.

 

On topic:

Obama's anti-Internet stance frightens me. He claims to have taken the platform of the opposite, but I have a hard time believing that considering the following:

Anti-"Piracy" Crackdown: http://www.dailytech...px?newsid=18815

Internet Kill Switch: http://www.theage.co...00618-yln6.html

Internet ID for Americans: http://www.cbsnews.c...837-501465.html

Signing ACTA: http://tech.fortune....evil-twin-acta/

 

Wheras Romney and the GOP fall here:

Opposing SOPA/PIPA: http://www.techdirt....-sopapipa.shtml

Anti-Net Neutrality: http://www.huffingto..._n_1841228.html

America really needs to do away with the obsolete 2-party system :(

I agree. I don't understand why anyone would want to put a limit on parties. PARTY TIME

Oh freedom, that wonderful concept that people love to depend on. Look. If there is law, there is no freedom. Only the consequences of breaking the law dictate our actions.

I'm going to have to say that John Locke was a better philosopher, and disagree with you.

So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom.

I don't buy Locke's philosophy for a second.

 

The intellectuals of the Enlightenment were against democracy--at least most of them were. They wanted education and law, yes, but they didn't want it in the hands of the masses. They feared populist movements. This was the age of Enlightened Absolutism. The Enlightenment philosophers have some pretty sounding quotes, but their philosophies have not held up over time. Theirs is the philosophy of self-interest. You can find a rationalization for just about anything the state does that is based on "reason." This includes law.

Oh freedom, that wonderful concept that people love to depend on. Look. If there is law, there is no freedom. Only the consequences of breaking the law dictate our actions.

I'm going to have to say that John Locke was a better philosopher, and disagree with you.

So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom.

I don't buy Locke's philosophy for a second.

 

The intellectuals of the Enlightenment were against democracy--at least most of them were. They wanted education and law, yes, but they didn't want it in the hands of the masses. They feared populist movements. This was the age of Enlightened Absolutism. The Enlightenment philosophers have some pretty sounding quotes, but their philosophies have not held up over time. Theirs is the philosophy of self-interest. You can find a rationalization for just about anything the state does that is based on "reason." This includes law.

populist movements like the French Revolution... Or any lawless riot. The most stable government in recent history is based on Locke's philosophy.

Laws allow people to leave their homes to vacation or protest, without fearing someone will take it or destroy it.

They weren't only concerned about lawless riots. They also didn't believe the average person was even capable of understanding government, nor did they want them to have any say in government. We're getting into some tricky philosophical territory here. Do you believe that ideas can be taken out of their context and implemented in the twenty-first century? I used to think they could be, but now I am not so sure. Our environment, indeed our reality, shapes our ideas. Ideas don't just come from anywhere, they are reactions to events or problems around us. Clearly the eighteenth century and the twenty-first are vastly different. How well can ideas shaped by the eighteenth-century world be applicable?

There are certain works and ideas that are timeless; it doesn't matter how old they are or when they were thought of, they still hold truth.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-1-2012/american-terror-story

 

Just another scandal.

so what'd everyone think of the debate?

 

I think Romney won the actual debating part (even if i think most everything he said was [bleep]ing stupid).

Romney easily won the debate.

Romney easily won the debate.

 

Yep, but the country is so polarized it will make little difference. Also, some people have already voted early. I question the wisdom of holding the debates after the polls have opened for voting. But it is what it is.