Azazello1313 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 since the government (defense department) created the internet, it only seems logical to give them more control over it, right? what could possibly go wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Mitt Romney's press Secretary doesn't want to talk about gaffes. "Kiss my ass, this is a holy place....shove it" ....but we've been riding on the plane for three days with this guy and he won't take any questions.... Edited July 31, 2012 by SayItAintSoJoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/romney-trip-success-disaster/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 some highlights "I think it was a great success," Romney adviser Stuart Stevens said "The idea is that, can people get a good sense of who he is? Can people listen and see that this is a person speaking from the heart about Israel and about Poland? And he is," Stevens added. "The reports that we get back are very positive," Stevens said of reviews the campaign's trip is receiving from supporters. --- Love that last one, wow so the Romeny supporters are giving positive feedback, how surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) eh, absolutely?!?! have you perhaps caught the news recently? its not, but what does that have to do with it being a gaffe? it kind of seems like whenever there is a gaffe some folk try to find the truth of the matter and some folk try to take advantage of it. you and bushy might disagree on who is who with this - but this does not make it 'not a gaffe' I did not mean that it was not a gaffe. Amazing that you and Bushy and SayJoe could not have realized what I actually meant. Hmmm Edited July 31, 2012 by gbpfan1231 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I did not mean that it was not a gaffe. Amazing that you and Bushy and SayJoe could not have realized what I actually meant. Hmmm I thought I knew what you meant but you kept asking for proof that Obama didn't say what he is on video saying. If what you meant was that it was a stupid thing to say then I think just about everyone can agree with that. Of course I could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I did not mean that it was not a gaffe. Amazing that you and Bushy and SayJoe could not have realized what I actually meant. Hmmm Not really, all their focus is now on trying to turn the conversation to some Romney staffer. No surprise there. Obama is begging for money; the 2.3 plus trillion in revenue annually and the 4 billion the government borrows every damn day is not enough. We need more for infrastructure and anyone who wants to fix this spending is the devil. It doesn't matter if we take in way more than other countries and then borrow endlessly, we; Need more Cowbell.....Must have more Cowbell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 It's completely laughable that the United States has a President who is so utterly clueless about economics. Obama's position is clear and simple: businesses owe their existence to the government. That's patently BS. We don't work for the government. The government works for us. Funny how easily that's transposed. This! Liberals must really hate you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Maybe Obama was trying to combat the forces that say everything the gubment does is evil and socialism. that maybe. Just maybe, the gubment does things that benefit business instead Of being painted as a freedumb hatin mooslim that is trying to destroy all business that is part of the tea party talking points. Is was very poorly worded and a gaffe. But is sure as hell isn't a window into his evil communist plans to revamp America into the "incredibly successful" model of socialism. Some people really need to get a grip. Presidents (and candidates) say dumbass stuff. No hidden meaning, no Oz behind the curtain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 agreed, but who, other than bushwacked and chavez, is talking about "z.o.mg socialism"? Obama's position is clear and simple: businesses owe their existence to the government. This! Liberals must really hate you. Hey Az, yer doing a heckuva job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I thought I knew what you meant but you kept asking for proof that Obama didn't say what he is on video saying. If what you meant was that it was a stupid thing to say then I think just about everyone can agree with that. wurd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 It's completely laughable that the United States has a President who is so utterly clueless about economics. granted, he's no nobel laureate in economics, but something tells me he probably knows a hell of a lot more about it than you. something tells me he has more education than you and something tells me that he's probably smarter than you. but then, he probably knows more about economics than most of us here (and he's probably smarter and better educated than most of us here.) Does that make him right? Not really. It just puts your opinion of his knowlege in the proper light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) granted, he's no nobel laureate in economics,No, his would be in the field of Peace but something tells me he probably knows a hell of a lot more about it than you. That something would not be his work experience nor his track record in the Senate nor as President though, would it? something tells me he has more education Not sure about this "more" thing. Does one have more if they spent 10 years as an undergrad or 5 years in the sixth grade? More seems a weird distinction. It also presupposes, I suppose, that formal education is all that matters in the metric. What about the education one gets through life. Me, I have more formal education than the President, and I have more life. than you and something tells me that he's probably smarter than you. I'm pretty confident he is not smarter than me, which is not to say that he does not have an above average I.Q. It's just that I am wicked smart. but then, he probably knows more about economics than most of us here Probably everyone here knows more about economics than me, with the obvious exception of Bushwacked.(and he's probably smarter and better educated than most of us here.) Does that make him right? Not really. It just puts your opinion of his knowlege in the proper light. Edited August 1, 2012 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 wurd It is not what I meant to say - jeez you guys really need to start looking at the context of the entire post and then make an assumption of what I really meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Why ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Resonates The president was needlessly insulting. He wasn’t just calling on successful people to pay more in tax but was being dismissive of their accomplishments. I agree with David Frum that the most toxic part of the speech is Barack Obama talking about the sources of success: I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. Really? The president is always struck by people who take credit for their own successes? Obviously, every successful outcome in life -- and every failed one -- arises from a combination of internal and external factors. But the president’s tone when he said this, amused by the very idea of people taking credit for their achievements, was off-putting. Frum mostly talks about why this statement irks rich people, but I believe it resonates badly with people at all income levels. Lots of people -- most, I hope -- are proud of something they’ve achieved in their lives and feel like that achievement owes much to their own hard work and talents. You don’t have to make over $250,000 a year to be annoyed when the president mocks people for taking credit for their achievements. And it’s an especially jarring statement because of what it’s used to justify -- higher taxes, with the implication being that they are called for because people do not deserve their own pre-tax wealth. People are rightly unnerved by an argument that amounts to “we can tax you because you didn’t deserve this anyway.” Faced with such an argument, defending your own contribution to your success isn’t just a point of pride -- it’s an argument you must make to defend the principle that you are entitled to your own private property. right on the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 When the walking gaffematic machine reflects back on his gaffes; he just claims he didn't say what he said: Under fire from Palestinian leaders for recent comments suggesting that Israel’s economic success is borne out of its “culture,”Mitt Romney on Tuesday attempted to clarify his remarks, telling Fox News that he had not talked about “the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy.” “I’m not speaking about it, did not speak about the Palestinian culture,” Romney told Fox’s Carl Cameron, in an interview taped before the candidate’s departure from Poland. “That’s an interesting topic that perhaps could deserve scholarly analysis but I actually didn’t address that. I certainly don’t intend to address that during my campaign. Instead I will point out that the choices a society makes have a profound impact on the economy and the vitality of that society.” Did he really think he didn't speak about it, or did he gaffe on reflecting about his gaffe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 so hold on....implying that Israel has a more productive civic culture than Palestine is a "gaffe"? seems like an obvious and incontestable statement of truth. that anyone is even trying to make it controvertial reeks of desperation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 so hold on....implying that Israel has a more productive civic culture than Palestine is a "gaffe"? seems like an obvious and incontestable statement of truth. that anyone is even trying to make it controvertial reeks of desperation. It is when you suggest: "“I’m not speaking about it, did not speak about the Palestinian culture.” I do not disagree with his assessment, it was just ill-advised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 fwiw, romney wrote an op-ed addressing those comments. pretty solid IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Again, I am not saying I disagree with the assessment, however ill-advised as it was. He was clearly talking about the Palastinians, and this overlooks some issues their economy is going through (Israel). I am not saying the Israelis are the bad guys, the issue is just a little more complex than Mitt made it. also - with Obama being one of those evil socialists, wouldn't any red blooded republican or tea-party member see England, Israel and Poland as socialist as well? What's with all of this freedom stuff? I thought socialism and national health care was anti-freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) I've never seen so much ZMOG! wasted so badly. Honestly, I expect more for the righties around here. Edited August 1, 2012 by The Irish Doggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 I just love when our political leaders put Israel's national interests over ours. Can we please stop kissing their rings yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I just love when our political leaders put Israel's national interests over ours. Can we please stop kissing their rings yet? Did he bow to anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Did he bow to anyone? IIRC, no archery was involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 since the government (defense department) created the internet, it only seems logical to give them more control over it, right? what could possibly go wrong? and if congress won't do it, we can take it over by executive order. because taking over the internet is just too darned important to worry about the constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) and if congress won't do it, we can take it over by executive order. because taking over the internet is just too darned important to worry about the constitution. This bill was blocked by Republicans in the Senate using the the Senate's filibuster (super majority) rule. I don't think that's in the constitution. Edited August 7, 2012 by SayItAintSoJoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.