This poor man is simply clueless. Totally politically clueless. He lacks a certain subtle intelligence crucial to discussing world affairs with the leaders of the world. Gaffe after Gaffe after Gaffe:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-playe … 15755.html
1 - Every politician makes gaffes. Obama has had more than his fair share.
2 - This really isn't as bad as you make it. He used a term that refers to the best of all fighters, and clarified his meaning, nor did she take offense at it.
Do you make this much of a deal about Obama's gaffes?
57 states 57 states 57 states 57 states.....
Years later, 57 states 57 states 57 states
Yes, that's one of them. Why focus on the gaffes of one side and pretend the gaffes on the other side don't matter?
Ask the Romney supporters...they are the ones making that case.
Romney just made a slip...which is what the dems said about Obama and 57 states.
But the R's here kept pushing and pushing 57 states to make fun of Obama.
Tell them to stop the 57 states thing!
This is always the problem.
Go make the other side stop first.
It's the other sides fault.
They started it.
I'm saying, if someone calls a R gaffe a gaffe and a D gaffe a slip, they aren't being honest. There's no reason to focus on one side only.
You just did.
I pointed out to the OP that it's not good to focus on the gaffes of one side. My position is that it's not good to focus on either side. Then you come in and start pointing at the Rs.
You asked this question:
"Do you make this much of a deal about Obama's gaffes?"
I pointed out that they did.
I asked bgamall if he makes as big of a deal about Obama's gaffes. This is a thread about Romney, I wanted to see if he makes the same big deal about D gaffes.
Your response was not only irrelevant, but it proved my point.
I geuss you missed it when every day there were 40 threads attacking Obama.
Should someone have gone on there and asked them if they did the same with Bush?
Ask any R if they attack R's the same way they attack Dems...what do you think the answer will be? Of course not.
You're still doing it! I don't condone R's or D's doing it.
Nor am I an R.
The point is that nobody should be doing it, but you just keep pointing to the R's.
I didn't see you asking Longhunter that when he made a thread with the title hate mongering liberals attacking the dead.
You see--that's my problem here at hp.
All these people claim to be fair, or indepenent, but they usually favor the right.
Favoring one side and NEVER admitting that the other side is wrong are two different critters.
I didn't respond to that thread because I wasn't a follower of the people being attacked. I don't usually inject myself into conversations I don't know about.
It's all about justification. You say you see it all the time here, so you do it too?
It's people speaking their mind...you seem to want everybody to act a certain way.
We are who we are.
Ah, you don't believe humans can change and grow?
Sorry, I do.
I used to be an R, and everything the D's did was evil. Then someone helped me open my eyes. Nobody should be hating on someone because of what side they are on, we all need to try working together.
Well, I geuss when you take a republican to task--I'll believe you more.
You see-I've been down this road before.
Had people lecture me about being one--sided while allowing their republican friends to go on as partisan as ever.
Let's see if you are an equal opportunity questioner.
Pessimistic then. I've done my fair share, I think Newt is one of the scummiest people to ever have lived, and I've criticized him for his personal conduct. I've done my research on Romney, but not on Santorum. I know I don't like Obama ever since he started campaigning, there are some pretty incriminating things about him out there.
I'm going to be voting Romney this time round, cause his economic/government spending/taxation policies are what we need.
So, that puts us at odds...
and try as you may to get along, there are just certain issues that cannot be resolved in this atmosphere.
I lived with Romnney as gvr, and I don't like him.
What WOULD help is a dart-board with Russsshhhh's face on it!
How bout a board where each slot is a different politician... both sides can win if they hit the ones they hate the most
I'd take the whole crew of Fox News and be satisfied.
That's human nature, LMC, so I partially agree with you. My problem is when some people ALWAYS attack and defend only one side. I've both attacked and defended BOTH sides on the HP forums. If my memory serves, I've seen you disagree with Obama on some points.
I liked when Obama admitted that he didn't know the "Austrian term" for wheeling and dealing.
Get a grip, man! Do you not understand what a heavyweight champion is?? Ann is obviously thin, and believe me - she's thinner in person. If she were overweight, I might consider the comment a gaffe. Oh, when you were talking about intelligence, you misspelled "discussing." lol. Sorry - the English teacher in me. Your finger probably just hit the wrong key. I do that, too, especially when my hands are numb from nerve damage.
Come on Habee, add to this the dog on the car roof gaffe, the 700k is middle income gaffe, the horse in every port gaffe, the not employed while I make 42 million gaffe, the not feeling rich while worth over 200 million gaffe, and you can see the Romneys have a problem.
They have a huge problem in that they are simply out of touch and lack thoughtfulness. Plus, Bain broke some companies and caused at least one death due to their greed.
Do you really want me to list all of Obama's and Michelle's gaffes?? And if I were to try to list all of Biden's gaffes, it would probably take me a week of typing! lol
Biden is Romney light. Biden is VP, Romney wants to be pres. Big difference.
What about Obama's gaffes? You keep avoiding that issue.
Biden is VP. Ann R does not hold any office. Big difference.
Do you make as big of a deal out of Obama's gaffes?
The 700k 'gaffe' is ridiculous, he said no such thing.
Having a good time with citizens isn't a gaffe either.
You're just fishing for ammo against Romney, why don't you focus on his politics?
Ok, I predict that Romney will increase wars and the pentagon's budget that is bloated now. I predict that Romney will allow more easy money lending as he seeks to repeal the Volcker Rule.
I predict that Romney will do more to harm the middle class since the rich know they can squeeze Americans as long as the policies to do so line up.
Both parties allow speculation and much of it comes from out of America, with Brent Crude Oil, so drilling won't change a thing. Our WTI will be exported as that is the plan.
But the Republicans want more housing bubbles and will end up attacking main street. The Republicans are very much like the IMF. I have documented that here and at Business Insider the desire for the wealthy to securitize and sell bad loans guaranteed by government.
You and Habee should read my articles there. If you hate what the IMF has done to third world developing nations beware of what they could do here and in Europe.
Do you make such a big deal about Obama's gaffes? What's that, 4 times you've been asked?
No, he has already proven to have some sympathy and concern for the 99 percent. If you are not in the 1 percent, you should not trust Romney. i trust you are not in the 1 percent Jaxson. Where do you put yourself that you should support folks predatory toward main street? In my ebook, Dirty Dirty Republicans, I make it clear that both parties have exploited mainstreet, but that the Republicans are planning more speculation in real estate in the future.
Main street? Don't most small businesses support Romney?
Your rants aren't coherent. What does Mitt's referring to his wife as his heavyweight champion have to do with the 1%?? I'm confused.
Most small biz is in the 1 percent. Or at least it is in the top 5 percent and wants the same freebees available only to the rich that will get them to the top 1 percent.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/t … -earn.aspx
I am starting to think you are a bit naive, Habee.
95% of the small business owners I know support Romney. I'm talking real small businesses - the ones that usually file taxes as individuals. These certainly aren't in the top 5%. Why do so many chambers of commerce, including the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, back Mitt?
You didn't answer my other question.
Mitt's tax plan will stimulate the economy:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 … aspx#page1
Mitt's tax plan would increase the gap between rich and poor in this country.
Please do some research and see what leading economists have to say about Romney's plan. And how could the gap get bigger if more people are employed? Employed people earn money. Obama is clueless about most economical issues. Why has he blocked Keystone? Even some democrats don't understand the POTUS's stand on that, including Bill Clinton.
Tax cuts and supply side economics coupled with hot money from the UK caused the housing bubble. Romney has the same economic advisors in place that helped blow the housing bubble in the last decade.
Mitt's tax plan is to reduce everyone's taxes, and keep the burden the same on each bracket. That's a fair reduction across the board.
Yeah, he's not going to effectively lower the taxes of the bottom 50% by much, because they only pay 1.8% already.
This is what that analysis said:
"The poor pay a little bit more. The rich pay a lot less".
That page isn't loading right. What part of Romney's plan will increase tax on the poor?
"Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates"
"Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains"
"Second, he all but erases Obama's term from the tax bill by repealing both Obamacare's taxes and the stimulus tax credits the president would like to extend."
"Lower taxes for everyone except the lowest-income Americans. Bigger tax breaks for the richest. And $500 billion added to the deficit by 2015 that we would have to borrow or cut."
I'm not naive - I know how to research. When you excoriate Romney for so many petty, unimportant things, it's hard for me to take you seriously.
Oh, I spend a lot more time on serious things. You can read me at Business Insider. I have over 90 articles there blasting such things as libertarianism, the ponzi housing scam, McDonald's Pink Slime, the Fed, Ron Paul, Tim Geithner and much more. I write under my real name, Gary Anderson, listed by first name in the author section.
With supporting the Dems it is just a question of the lesser of two evils.
Then you know that McDonald's is no longer serving up pink slime. Now it's being served in school cafeterias. Yuck!!
True, so I wonder what filler they are using now. George W Bush deregulated the beef industry and allowed this to happen.
Gross! Why did it take this long for folks to discover it? And why is it being allowed in our schools? The mother who sent her kid to school with a turkey sandwich was rebuked, yet the schools are feeding pink slime? Is the amonia compound the same stuff Walmart was blamed for using with their ground beef several years ago?
OK, Habee, but you must admit that Romney is pretty gaffe-prone. I'd list a few, but I'm sure everyone is aware of most of them. However, that's the least of his problems. He's pandered to the Tea Partiers to the point where nobody can be sure what he really believes and what his policies would be if he were lucky enough to win the election.
Does that certain subtle intelligence begin with a bow and by your leave the way Obama grovels?
Hahaha, oh come on-- political spin anyone?
I think it's amusing. He obviously meant to compliment his wife, and not hurt her, but he just fumbled like any human is prone to do.
Just curious, are the OP and LMC brother and sister?
"If you cut tax rates, the rich pay less. If the rich pay less, somebody pays more. If nobody pays more, then the government shrinks. If the government shrinks, the beneficiaries of government lose. Who are the beneficiaries of government spending? Three out of every five dollars goes to old people (e.g. Social Security), sick people (e.g. Medicaid/Medicare), and poor people (e.g. income security programs). If we cut government, the poor, sick, and old will probably lose out."
A lot of government money goes to inefficiency, or paying interest on debt. It's waste. The government is NOT the ideal of efficiency, so we don't want them being the ones running everything. The post office has a -7% profit margin. We are short $42 TRILLION dollars to pay medicare/medicaid and SS for the next 60 years. Think about that, $42 TRILLION.
Why don't we just get rid of the cap on FICA? It stops at $106,000 now.....even if you raised it, that would solve a lot.
When the government wastes taxpayer money, spends taxpayer money that it wasn't supposed to spend, the answer isn't to raise taxes.
Social security is not a wasteful program. Neither is medicare. It's much more efficient than private insurance, a bulk of whose money goes to perks and bennies of the ceos.
FICA pays them both, as well as disability and other such programs. Lifting the cap or getting rid of it alltogether would fund it forever, and not hurt anyone in the process.
All these GOP policies hurt the ones who can least afford it,and reward those who already have it made.
This is a common lie from the left. CEO salaries are tiny, tiny fractions of total business. For instance, if the CEO of Coca Cola gave all his earnings back into reducing the price of coke, each can would cost $0.000003 less.
Private insurance can be more efficient than governmental, and if you include the future-debt of these programs it is much more efficient.
No, even if there were NO cap on FICA, the funds would still run out in 75 years. But that's always the answer. Government spends money it's not supposed to spend, and we'll tax the rich even more to make up for it, right?
We need to LOWER taxes to encourage investment and growth. We are above almost every developed nation in taxes, higher taxes isn't the answer.
Yeah, an equal tax cut for everyone hurts the poor.
"Somebody making between $10,000 and $20,000 would pay 1% more in taxes than they would under Obama's current policy. Somebody making between $500,000 and $1 million would pay between 7% less in taxes"
No--I don't like it. It's another tax break for rich people! Same old same old!
They are not going to pay 1% more. The bottom 50%, which goes up to $35,000 (iirc) only pays 1.85% already, and Romney will lower that by 20%.
Romney said it best. People are rating his tax plan, when the details haven't been released yet. It's just news agencies and 'study groups' trying to get hits by doing 'research'.
This is why we don't need more stimulus. Do you still think Obama will get it right after his last promise?
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/defaul … hart_0.jpg
The stimulus needed to be bigger and bolder. We the 99% of the people need it, not we the 1%.
Stimulus didn't work. You want a bigger stimulus than the last one? What about Obama's promise that if we could spend $1 trillion on stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%, do you still trust that stimulus is the answer?
He didn't say that. A member of his team did. And she was speculating, not promising. That is a GOP lie that is out there.
And the stimulus DID work. It saved or created 3 million jobs. And the GM loan worked too.
And Obamacare is starting to show real signs of progress...in terms of saving money and getting more people insured.
2 years of private sector job growth.
We are just starting to recover from the blow we were leveled by 30 years of theft to the top.
We can not afford to go back and let them finish the job!
No, it was in his stimulus bill. Obama said if we didn't get the stimulus we would hit double digits. Well, we still did. With the stimulus, the unemployment rate was worse than the projection without it. You can say they were just wrong, but that margin of error is so large it approaches a coin flip.
We still hit double digits. As far as jobs saved, that's been debated ever since Obama took office. Regardless, any jobs created by government spending are temporary jobs, artificial demand, and those jobs are gone now.
And bankrupting our country.
First, imagine how the private sector would grow if we had competitive tax rates.
Secondly, job growth, adjusted for capita, has barely increased. Yes, things are starting to turn around, but any free market will correct itself after a recession. We could be doing so much better than we are.
We lowered taxes in 03,05 and 10....what growth? What jobs?
More Swiss bank accounts for the Uber Rich.
And weren't people being turned away from private insurance companies if they deemed the risk too high? You want to go back to that?
Romney's plan is not an equal tax cut. He cuts more for $500,000 and up.
And he increases the deficit by 500 bil.
It's another reverse robin hood.
Our corporate tax rates are still way too high. We can lower personal tax rates, but it doesn't help too much if we don't have businesses investing in America to create jobs and stimulate wealth.
He doesn't cut more, he's cutting 20% for every bracket. 20% = 20%.
"And bankrupting our country"
Good News! Obamacare Will Cost Less than Projected http://mojo.ly/zBJRQR
Thankyou for all your efforts that you have put in this. very interesting info
Private sector has added 4 million jobs over the last 2 years http://pic.twitter.com/Jwubugok
by Dr Billy Kidd 6 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on the other guy. Is it Mitt who has the secret agenda? I surely don't know. Perhaps,...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
they saw President Barack Obama as the president of promise and reformation? During President Obama's administration, unemployment and national debt is the HIGHEST it has been. More and more civil liberties are being eroded. Despite Obama's dismal and horrific record, Americans...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 5 years ago
The two recent Presidential and one vice-presidential debates have made it abundantly clear that Obama and Biden can not defend their indefensible 4 year record of bad economic and domestic/foreign policies. They have been, during those debates, grasping at false narratives made more...
by Dr Billy Kidd 6 years ago
Turns out that Romney showed the press a partial tax statement for 2010. It was discovered thereafter that a significan section of his tax form is missing. That part, by law, tells what the overseas investments do. For example, does Romney's company in the Cayman Island hold controllling stock in a...
by mio cid 3 years ago
President Obama's jigsaw puzzle strategy is winning him support of women,youth,immigrants and hispanics,black voters,union workers etc. Romney's strategy is based on how bad a president Obama has been and pandering to the republican base which is controlled by the tea party and the extreme right...
by Elijahokelley 6 years ago
I personally think that Romney will win because Obama's supporters won't be as enthusiastic and riled up as they were in 2008. He'll likely have losses in key demographics, such as the African American vote, that won't be large but may still add up to hurt him whether these votes transfer to Romney...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|