Romney says GOP's not "party of the rich"...but?

1. 72

   Cagsilposted 12 years ago

   Is the party that wants to be rich.
   
   He is seriously trying to sell this BS to the general pubic?
   
   JACKSON, Miss. - At a fundraiser at a country club in Mississippi this evening that was expected to raise a record-breaking $1.7 million, Mitt Romney defended the Republican Party against its reputation as the "party of the rich" explaining that really, it is a party focused on helping the poor.
   
   It's a party focused on helping the poor, really?
   
   "We're accused, by the way - in our party - of being the party of the rich," Romney said. "And it's an awful moniker, because that's just not true.
   
   And what's not true about it- How many politicians are already millionaire status?
   
   We're the party of people who want to get rich. And we're also the party of people who want to care to help people from getting poor. We want to help the poor.
   
   He had to mention the poor people twice here, just to make a BS political statement. Their actions prove they're not interested in helping the poor(and no the other side isn't any better, so shut up).
   
   "We also want to make sure people don't have to become poor," Romney said. "And we know what it takes to keep people from becoming poor."
   
   Yet another poor people statement. And to back it up he lies in his next statement. No politician presently in office has an answer to what it takes to keep people from becoming poor. They rather make more poor people while preaching to the poor people that they can help.
   
   This was Romney's second fundraiser of the day, his first in Louisiana raising at least $2 million, bringing the campaign's tally for the day to $3.7 million.
   
   Nice little tally, huh?
   
   http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-gops- … itics.html
   
   Absurd.
   
   Btw- feel free to read the rest of the article. I didn't. I was disgusted by just what I took from it.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So exactly what are you trying to say here? That he's evil because of the amount of money he's raised for his campaign? President Obama broke fund raising records in 2008. I guess he's just as evil then.
      
      What have the Democrats done for the poor the last 4 years? Do we really need to make them more dependent on the government? Is that a good plan? Recent studies have shown that the poor in America live better than the Middle Class in some countries around the world. They have cable TV, cell phones, housing and food. In a sense Mr. Romney is correct. The Republican Party would rather create jobs so everyone can work. The Democrats would like you to remain dependent on your government for your needs. Then they can increase their control over your personal life. Decide what you eat, what you buy, penalize you for NOT buying something, etc.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I'm not saying anything here except for the fact that I'm pointing out the LIES of Romney.
         
         No
         
         No.
         
         The better question is what has any politician truly done since the inception of America? Forget the last 4 years.
         
         As little government is the ideal outcome. Not making people more dependent on anyone.
         
         Yes, making people LESS dependent on anyone for help is much better than screwed up politicians making things more difficult.
         
         A homeless person is a homeless person. A starving person is a starving person. A person who lives in poverty is a person who lives in poverty. The fact that you bring up a study which applies to a social class shows of how much you are out of touch with reality of today.
         
         Yes, fraud in the system is evident. Thank for telling me something I already know.
         BS. He wants to do no such thing. He lies. The GOP has never, not once, been interested in the poor or how to help them. Please open your eyes.
         You see, that's where you're gullible. Government can only create jobs for the government. So please save the BS for someone buying it.
         Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Please re-read my OP and find the words in bold type are inside (bold type). I'm not making any claims about Democrats.
         Both sides are interested in control. Both sides don't give a damn about citizens rights, needs or anything else for that matter. They just look and say they do.
         You need to seriously Open Your Eyes...it's already being done and politicians are NOT doing it, but the FDA does. So please...go learn something.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            But you see, when I try to say that I'm voting Republican because they at least make moves towards less government and less government interference, I'm told how very wrong I am. That we need more government, more entitlements. No, we don't. We need our government to learn how to govern and stop trying to control.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               How can that be when they want to ban gay marriage and they want to control women's bodies through more legislation ?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  tirelesstravelerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Universal writer- Who I am is not determined by what I do, which seems to be what you are saying with this argument on same sex marriage and abortion.  In the 70's the mantra was "You can't legislate morality" which was exactly what Roe v Wade did.
                  A commitment between one  man and one women has been known as a marriage for eons.  It has only been in the last 15 years this has been a controversy.   
                  The Republicans are not the people who have  made these things issues.  Abortion was legalized by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan before Roe v Wade.

                  replyreport
               2. 52

                  BBVstarposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Gay marriage is a farce, an attempt to normalize abnormal behavior.
                  
                  If all that was being sought was equality, then civil unions with the same legal status as marriage would be all that's needed. But the push is for the "title of marriage", so that the gays can magically become mainstream and just like everyone else, but that is not possible.
                  
                  The same attitudes, beliefs and feelings that attract same sex people to each other will always make them unique.
                  
                  That is ok, just don't expect that difference to be universally accepted any more than drug, booze and physical violence, while wide spread and some what understood are generally accepted.
                  
                  It is not the same sex couples that are the biggest issue for acceptance, it is the in your face, open demonstrations of physical contact, ie...men french kissing in a resturant, women groping each other in a movie theatre, implied sexual acts as part of a gay pride parade. This isn't love, its just degenerate behavior.
                  
                  When two lesbians have a son and petition the courts to get him a sex change because they feel he is sexually confused, that is degenerate behaviour being foisted on a child. My goodnes, who wouldn't be confused in that type of a household.

                  replyreport
                  1. 72

                     Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     It's only abnormal to those who have no interest in realizing that homosexuality/lesbianism is found in natural animals. So, get over yourself would you please. And Gay/Lesbian marriages are not a farce. A man or a woman should have a right to marry whomever they damn well choose and no one should have any authority to say otherwise. Got it?

                     replyreport
                     1. 52

                        BBVstarposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I agree no one should have any authority to say otherwise. God has already done that, and not you, or me, or any one has authority over Him.
                        
                        I am simply saying that "marriage" is a religious union between a man and a woman.
                        
                        A civil union can be whatever the state allows. Accept this and life would be so much easier.
                        
                        Trying to redefine "marriage" is like trying to glue a horn on a horse and renaming it a unicorn. It just wont work.
                        
                        As far as homosexuality/lesbian activity being found in animals, I really appreciate your bring this up. Animals preform these acts in the wild usually to show dominance over the weaker animals. Also, it is an abberation as even animals have enough instinctive intelligence to mate only with their opposite sexs. Otherwise extinction is inevitable.
                        
                        Of course, if you want to be thought of as equal to rutting "natural" animals, who am I to disagree. You put me in my place, after all I don't have that authority, do I?

                        replyreport
                        1. 72

                           Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Really? Do you speak for whatever G/god you believe in? If so, please have your head examined if you're hearing voices and they are telling you to do something about it.
                           Really? Last time I checked, "marriage" had more than one definition.
                           Get over yourself and leave your G/god out of the equation, and what do you know, life would be so much more peaceful. Get it?
                           Too bad, if you don't like, then go meet your G/god.
                           BS, pure and simple.
                           No one, which was the original point of leaving others alone and let them do as they want.
                           I didn't put you in your place. I'm just stating the obvious which seems to be a miss from the religious who are inept to minding their own damn business.

                           replyreport
                           1. 52

                              BBVstarposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Wow Cagsil,
                              
                              I am impressed. My expectation was to see how tolerant you might be in a frank discussion to ideas different.
                              
                              I expected a ramp up (escalation) of differing points of view with the final discussion bringing out your true beliefs. Instead you bare it all with no preamble or window dressing.
                              
                              Let me make sure I "get it".
                              
                              All politicians are either liers, corrupt or idiots.
                              
                              People who like Mitt are idiots.
                              
                              God has no place in politics or in determining moral right from wrong.
                              
                              Anyone who follows Gods instructions (which are written down, so sorry, no voices) are delusional and/or trying to "speak for God". (And yes, as a Christian I do speak as God directs), but through his teachings.
                              
                              Based on you tone in your responses, I made assumptions that include a lack of tolerance for others beliefs.
                              
                              I also picked up a condesending attitude, and the feeling that you believe you are somehow superior.
                              
                              Let's see, what else...oh yes, you are unable or unwilling to admit that someone that doesn't toe your line of thinking has a point, or the right to express a differing idea, or that they may have "turned a good phrase".
                              
                              As a professor of mine once said, "Get over your self".
                              
                              I don't pretend to have all of the answers. I have lots of questions, though. My belief system includes experience, mentors, parents, friends and God.
                              
                              I am happy. I know where my moral and ethical compass points at all times. There is never any question on right and wrong, and it doesn't matter what the current PC bias is. I don't need to walk in a parade, incite a riot during a "peaceful"demonstration or any of the other current modes of protest to prove my way is the only way.
                              
                              If I offended you personally by stating my opinion on the subject of gays, or corrupt politicians or your seeming list to the liberal side, sorry. If you are unable to accept an apology, again I am sorry, for you.

                              replyreport
            2. 72

               Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Republicans and Democrats both will gladly tell you that they want less government and then they turn around increase the government duties. BOTH lie.
               Any idiot making the claim that we need more government, more entitlements, then they are the ones who are unwilling to work for what they want.
               Ain't happening. Our government isn't interested in learning how to govern nor will it attempt to stop trying to control people. People in office see it as the government's job to tell people what to do, what to think, how to think, what to buy, what to eat, how to dress and a host of other things which is actually detrimental to the survival of America.

               replyreport
2. 76

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   Best line: "And we're also the party of people who want to care to help people from getting poor."
   
   They want to care. They really do. They just .... can't... seem... to... care  ENOUGH to even complete the thought, let alone doing anything to help people from getting poor.
   Do we suppose he considers/counts all those formerly middle class people who became poor during the bank/mortgage meltdown?
   Just curious.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hey Mighty Mom,
      
      He is more delusional than those who support him, which is a little ironic. However having said that, it is still amazing at the people who do support his position, which is non-existent to start off. I mean seriously, he has done nothing but attack, attack, attack and defend 'himself', but still has come up with any answers for the future.
      
      Except for the fact that in one Speech he said he want to Change Massachusetts Constitution, so as to outlaw Abortion by establishing Life is at conception.
      
      He doesn't stand for equality nor equal rights, so he is wasting his breath.

      replyreport
3. 52

   BBVstarposted 12 years ago

   Well, I see your apparent bias towards anti-Mitt. Are you trying to say you are anit-rich also?
   
   The fact that you are writing in this forem proves that, in my opinion, like most that drink the redistribution koolaid, you are not being honest. How can you voice your disgust against how much Mitt is raising and not condem all the money being raised by Obama, or any other politician.
   
   That and the fact this is a forum designed to make money for the blogger. Try another subject, or atleast get some new talking points...
   
   BBVstar

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Obviously you missed the point...

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Hey UW, don't worry about it. It happens a lot on the forums.

         replyreport
   2. 72

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, if you were talking to me, which I have to assume according to forum etiquette(hopefully you know what that is) that you were talking to me when you wrote this post. Since that should be the case, I'm not "anti" Romney. I'm "anti" people who lie. I'm "anti" corrupt politicians. I'm "anti" poverty. I'm "anti" homelessness.
      Is that on my list? Nope.
      There's no fact about me you could have learned from the OP(opening post) and for you to assume anything about me without knowing more, then it's YOU who are dishonest. So, I guess you seem to see your own reflection. Now, that's a shame.
      Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. What else is new.
      The forum isn't designed to make money from the blogger and apparently in the 2 weeks you've been here, you've managed to only show off how dishonest you are. Again, shame on you.
      I don't use talking points. But, yet another show of dishonesty.

      replyreport
4. 60

   JSChamsposted 12 years ago

   Isn't the bigger question why aren't there any rich Democrats?

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There are "rich" Democrats and for you to ask that question is really foolish, and the sadder part is that YOU know it, even before YOU asked it.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         There cannot be any rich Democrats. That would make them evil.That would make them......republicans.
         It would make them racist.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            BS
            BS
            More BS.
            More BS.
            
            Thank you for not adding much value.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               We just have to watch how close to stereotyping we get.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Stereotyping? Hmmm.... I don't stereotype politicians.
                  
                  There are corrupt politicians in office, this has been proven by their actions.
                  
                  The non-corrupt politicians in office which do nothing about the corrupt politicians in office, are dishonest, but not necessarily corrupted.
                  
                  It's pathetic.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Contrary to all the histrionics about Bain, I really don't know that Romney is any more corrupt than any of the rest. That includes Obama.
                     You get a bit tired of hearing about how corrupt someone is because he ran a successful business.
                     That's just propagating the myth of the rich, evil Republicans. Hence the stereotype.

                     replyreport
                     1. 72

                        Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I told Obama on Twitter that he is to STOP his tyrant ways. I'm sure it was dismissed since he didn't respond back.
                        Being corrupt isn't about business ownership. It has never been about that. It is about those who use their power of position to do harm to others on purpose, which is the corruption I'm talking about.
                        But, I'm not as I said.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Didn't say you were. It will happen on HP about fifty times in the next ten minutes.
                           That and the overuse of the word racism.

                           replyreport
                           1. 72

                              Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Good to know.

                              replyreport
5. 61

   tirelesstravelerposted 12 years ago

   Where are all the other articles to support your theory that Republicans are the party of the rich?
   Romney has been in California once in the last 7 months. The press was invited and they covered it with great detail.  Mr. President has been in California 7 times in  the last 7 months. The press is never invited.  He causes all sorts of billy hell with traffic, costs the cities he visits thousands of dollars  and creates the most horrendous traffic jams.  One night there was a Giants and part of the Golden Gate was closed.  There is never any press.  What I hear about his visits is only the least expensive was $7,000/person for a 20 minute breakfast meeting.  The most common price/person is $35,000. I have always wondered what kind of food would be worth that much.
   George Clooney, Ed Asner, George Sores, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Babara Boxer, Brad Pit,  Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg. How many rich Republicans can you name without thinking much. 
   Study your history.  Especially the civil rights movement you won't find the Democratic party going out of their way to promote civil rights.  They had George Wallace, whom I thought was fringe, but was governor for how long.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not picking one over the other. I've already stated in my OP that both sides are just as bad as the other.
      
      Democrats and Republicans are not interested in Equality or Equal Rights.

      replyreport