Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by GAFinch, Sep 17, 2012.
My mistake. I thought when you posted something you had a point to make. I should have known better.
Well, then, my apologies for not continually stating the obvious for your (apparently necessary) benefit.
ETA: Oh, and hey...bonus points for quoting yourself in your sig.
We have almost 4 years of Obama being in charge. That is what people need to take a look at.
In a sane world the following Obama video would have been the big news story....
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE"]Obama open mic slip: 'After my election I have more flexibility' - YouTube[/ame]
But obama's deception and dishonesty displayed in this video is not news for the MSM because it is behavior that is totally accepted by them and the democratic party.... cheat, lie and manipulate the stupid voting public. Promise to throw them a free bag of M&Ms and they will follow you anywhere.
Another botch by Team Mittens, had he been saying this publicly he could have at least had some say the narrative. Instead he's busy chasing after a hostile press.
I know, but it is a shame. Obama is admitting that what he wants to do is so outrageous that it would likely cost him the election.
Mitt is saying he can't spend time and resources trying to convince Obama's faithful to vote for him.
I've seen a few people call this a botch. Why? He is absolutely right. There will be a large group of voters who will vote for Obama simply to keep the money flowing. There will be a large group of voters who will simply vote for Obama because of his skin color. There will be a large number of MSM people who are openly hostile to Republicans, and will only vote Democratic.
Why should Romney waist his limited time and limited money on trying to convince voters and the MSM who will never vote for him?
What he said was red meat for conservatives. They will eat it up because its what they believe. What is surprising is he didn't walk back the statement.
Obama has already acknowledged that there is a large voting block that fears that their checks and subsidies upon which they have become dependent will be taken away by Romney and the GOP. He plays into that fear at every opportunity in order to keep those votes trending toward him. But for some reason, it's wrong when Romney points that out but okay when Obama does.
The problem is that the VAST majority of the MSM believes the way Obama does. And since they have stopped showing even a pretense of objectivity in their reporting, they will simply push their preferred narrative.
In polling done in swing states, this incident is actually an important concern for swing voters. This must have made the rounds in a few different outlets.
He could've said it perfectly and he'd still be chasing after a hostile media. The MSM media has become a full-fledged state propaganda machine for the past four years. The advantage to this being off the cuff and leaked is that it reassures conservatives and moderates that he meant what he said. I've long maintained that he's more conservative than people give him credit for, but it's still nice to get some reassurances.
Now, I believe Romney spoke truth words in the first place. But on top of that, I have to believe that the revelations of the "redistribution" comments by Obama in 1998 are more damaging than whatever way the MSM wants to spin Mitt's comments.
We are still predominantly a center-right nation (hard as it is to imagine at times), and Obama adding his own verbal authentication to the narrative that he is a socialist has to be damaging to him. I mean, one can hardly be accused of "racism" if Obama said so in his own words...
No, he is getting a lot of good mileage for his message out of the press. "Team Mittens" is playing it quite well actually. He stated a fact and he isn't apologizing for it like "the Apologizer in Chief"would. He is showing integrity and honesty (not that any liberals recognize either one, but that's OK they weren't going to vote for anyone but Dear Leader anyway)
This is what I posted on another thread.....
"I'm from Arkansas and it amazes me every time someone that I know, not a friend, just someone that I know, that are White Trailer Park Trash that says they are going to vote for Romney.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Take "Person X" for example......
Lives in a rented trailer in a trailer park and HUD pays his rent. Plus he draws +$700.00/mo in food stamps, has one kid drawing an SSI check, kids are on ARKids insurance (welfare) and states that he and his ol' lady will vote for Romney in November.
Yep, this is your typical Southern Republican.
I know several hundred of them."
Maybe they don't feel they're entitled to more of our money than they're already getting. A foreign concept for liberals, I'm quite sure.
1. Romney (or any other Republican) isn't going to completely eliminate welfare programs. Republicans want a return to a safety net for 10-20% of the population, preferably run through more efficient local/private programs, not a safety hammock for 50-60% of the population.
2. Your example illustrates that calls for reforming welfare isn't racist.
3. I don't know how any white male can watch the DNC convention and find anything in common with the modern Social Democrat party.
The self-loathing can and do... but I agree with your sentiment.
How can any white male (especially one that owns a business, is wealthy or self sufficient) watch the DNC convention and think these people represent me and my interests?
I don't even think the DNC LIKES white males. They sure don't like business owners as they prove with Obama and the fake Injun's comments about "you did not build that."
And Mitt flip flops again.
I didn't see the interview, so I'm not exactly sure what Romney is saying he is completely wrong about. If he's saying that it was wrong for him to voice the opinion that a 47 percent group of people, in their entirety, wouldn't vote for him because of their non-taxed status, I can understand the retraction.