Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#652 Feb 01 2012 at 9:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So long as you feel taking quotes wildly out of context for political ads is a sign of great moral character, you should have no problems Smiley: smile


Perhaps you should look into the plank in your own eye first? Bit hypocritical, don't you think? You making that statement about morals right after you did the exact same thing yourself. Do you believe that you are a moral person?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#653 Feb 01 2012 at 9:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If the intent was to honestly debate the relative positions and platforms involved rather than make a cheap and misleading headline/whatever to get people on your side that is.

In my case, it wasn't. It was to laugh at him making another sound-bite ready gaffe that plays perfectly into the narrative he's trying to shake.

I hear he also likes firing people.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#654 Feb 01 2012 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Perhaps you should look into the plank in your own eye first? Bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Is it? Do you or do you not feel that taking those quotes out of context is a moral act? I didn't start a thread complaining about Romney's ad but you sure started up the waterworks when you saw Romney's quote being taken out of context here Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#655 Feb 02 2012 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
I'm a little disappointed he's still parroting like no one's business, but I am a little flattered he's mimicking me now.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#656 Feb 02 2012 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,543 posts
Because "I don't care about the very poor" is still a horrifying thing for a politician to admit, inside or outside of its context.

Edit: Quote fail. Smiley: bah

Edited, Feb 2nd 2012 6:20pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#657 Feb 02 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
catwho wrote:
Because "I don't care about the very poor" is still a horrifying thing for a politician to admit, inside or outside of its context.


And if he'd said that, you might have a point. Do you see how you're responding to the incorrect reporting about what he said and not to what he actually said.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#658 Feb 02 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
What a public figure actually says doesn't matter nearly as much as how any part of it can be perceived by the public. One misstep and you're left having to do damage control.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#659 Feb 02 2012 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Perhaps you should look into the plank in your own eye first? Bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Is it? Do you or do you not feel that taking those quotes out of context is a moral act?


Depends on how out of context, how different the impression the out of context quoting gives to the audience, and who/why the quote is being taken out of context.

How would you rank the following in terms of your expectation of factual information without bias or subjective presentation of statements by others:

1. A news outlet writing an article
2. A politician giving a speech
3. A politicians campaign ad

Which gives a more false impression:

1. Cutting off half a quote so that someone saying that he's not concerned about a group of people because they're already being taken care of is turned into a statement which appears to say that he doesn't care about that group.

2. Cutting off half a quote so that someone quoting someone else appears to be saying the same thing himself, when your point is to show that what he was attributing to that other person now applies to himself.


And just for bonus irony points:

3. Said someone falsely attributing said quote from an anonymous source within a campaign to "the campaign" in the first place.



Quote:
I didn't start a thread complaining about Romney's ad but you sure started up the waterworks when you saw Romney's quote being taken out of context here Smiley: smile


I'm not sure how those are equated in your mind. I also didn't start a thread about either event. You decided to repeat a false interpretation of Romney's statement, then to defend your action you decided to play the 'two wrongs make a right' game and bring up something Romney's campaign did in an ad. Really? How the **** does that work in your head? You honestly believe it's ok for you to repeat a falsehood because someone else said something somewhere else you also view as false? That's kinda strange IMO.

Edited, Feb 2nd 2012 4:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#660 Feb 02 2012 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
What a public figure actually says doesn't matter nearly as much as how any part of it can be perceived by the public. One misstep and you're left having to do damage control.


Sure. But when the media deliberately misreports what was said to create that perception, aren't they lying? And isn't it completely fair and legitimate to point that out, as loudly and often as possible?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#661 Feb 02 2012 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
******
44,522 posts
gbaji wrote:
But when the media deliberately misreports what was said to create that perception, aren't they lying?
Did he, or did he not, say "I'm not concerned with the very poor, we have safety nets there" ? At what point is that ever a good idea for a public figure who's running for a job that's supposed to be concerned with 100% of the population? Trying to blame the media on his word choices is ignorant.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#662 Feb 02 2012 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But when the media deliberately misreports what was said to create that perception, aren't they lying?
Did he, or did he not, say "I'm not concerned with the very poor, we have safety nets there" ? At what point is that ever a good idea for a public figure who's running for a job that's supposed to be concerned with 100% of the population? Trying to blame the media on his word choices is ignorant.


If what he said by itself was so terrible, why crop off the second half? Why not repeat the whole quote and let the public decide how outraged they are by it instead of deliberately cropping off the second half, then leading with a teaser in which you replace the phrase "not concerned" with "doesn't care"? If what he said was so bad by itself, then why change it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#663 Feb 02 2012 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Which gives a more false impression:

1. Cutting off half a quote so that someone saying that he's not concerned about a group of people because they're already being taken care of is turned into a statement which appears to say that he doesn't care about that group.

2. Cutting off half a quote so that someone quoting someone else appears to be saying the same thing himself, when your point is to show that what he was attributing to that other person now applies to himself.

The second one, absolutely. The first one is a factual, if incomplete, account of what they said. The second is completely misleading and misattributed. There's no question about it.

Not that it shocks me that you'd rationalize it differently but it's really kind of pathetic that you have to do so.

Keep on flying the "moral" flag there and crying about poor widdle Willard not being quoted right! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#664 Feb 02 2012 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
Yes, I saw that episode of House where he said you look smarter asking question than answering them. It doesn't actually work. Seeing as how you're not going to face the issue and do your darnedest to try to obscure reality, I'll go ahead and say if people don't want to be taken out of context, then they should probably think about what they say.

You're welcome to whine about how the evil media is out to get you as your last word. It really won't change the whole reality of "if you don't want to be taken out of context, don't make it easy to be taken out of context" deal, but tonight I'm just not masochistic enough to deal with your mindless zombie like defensive behavior. You know? If you don't want people to think you're a ****, don't dress like a ****? That kind of thing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#665 Feb 02 2012 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, if he actually and honestly believes in his answer there, there's just a massive gulf of logic that I can't see it being bridged.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#666 Feb 02 2012 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,543 posts
Can we break his spacebar key again so we get shorter posts?
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#667 Feb 02 2012 at 9:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which gives a more false impression:

1. Cutting off half a quote so that someone saying that he's not concerned about a group of people because they're already being taken care of is turned into a statement which appears to say that he doesn't care about that group.

2. Cutting off half a quote so that someone quoting someone else appears to be saying the same thing himself, when your point is to show that what he was attributing to that other person now applies to himself.

The second one, absolutely. The first one is a factual, if incomplete, account of what they said.


"Factual, if incomplete"? That's some serious rationalizing right there. So you change the meaning of what the guy was saying from "We don't need to worry about this group because we're already taking care of them" to "we don't care about this group". And you think that's just being "incomplete"? Smiley: oyvey


Quote:
The second is completely misleading and misattributed. There's no question about it.


Aside from the fact that had they included the first half of the statement they would have been repeating a misattributation first made by Obama and thus perpetuating a falsehood, the point was to show that someone held to blame for problems with the economy is going to tend to want to avoid talking about the economy if he wants to win an election. The use of a quote of Obama talking about what the McCain camp was doing in that situation is incredibly relevant and applicable. The quote isn't about sticking that sentence in his mouth, but to show that he is now in the same position he bashed McCain for in the 2008 election.

I know that requires some thought and understanding of the whole ad rather than just some screaming about it made on some far left blogs somewhere, but I was hoping you could rise above that.


Quote:
Not that it shocks me that you'd rationalize it differently but it's really kind of pathetic that you have to do so.


Yeah. Rubber and glue, right? I mean you're not at all interpreting those things based on your own political leanings, right? Smiley: lol

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#668 Feb 02 2012 at 10:16 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, if he actually and honestly believes in his answer there, there's just a massive gulf of logic that I can't see it being bridged.


Sounds like a bridge to no where....
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#669 Feb 02 2012 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
"Factual, if incomplete"? That's some serious rationalizing right there.

If by "rationalizing" you mean "accurate" then I guess you got me.

Quote:
Aside from the fact that...

Speaking of rationalizing Smiley: laugh Gotta protect Romney at all costs! Can't ever, ever, ever admit to any error from him!

Ah, you. Have fun being... umm... you, I guess. Someone has to do it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#670 Feb 03 2012 at 5:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
If you don't want people to think you're a ****, don't dress like a ****?
Hasn't he said pretty much exactly that in rape debates?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#671 Feb 03 2012 at 7:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
Quote:
So you change the meaning of what the guy was saying from "We don't need to worry about this group because we're already taking care of them" to "we don't care about this group". And you think that's just being "incomplete"?


Well, your "accurate" quote should at least be accurate. He did say "I don't care about the very poor, because...." and I forget the exact wording, but because there's a safety net for them already, was the import.

Now, consider the fact that the safety net is there because the very poor need it, which means they are not okay by definition. That's some tone deaf phrasing, right there, even if you understand what he meant.

And I agree with his message, which is that getting the middle class back into the game is the more urgent task at the moment, setting aside the fact that this includes finding a way to bring the newly poor back into the middle class. It was still an insensitive and jarring statement, and it came across as clueless and elitist.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#672 Feb 03 2012 at 7:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
It was still an insensitive and jarring statement, and it came across as clueless and elitist.

Precisely. Which is why I didn't say "Haha, Romney hates poor people" but rather "Hey, thanks for the quote which fits exactly into the narrative you're trying to avoid".

At least some people here can get the point Smiley: smile

Of course, a lot of middle class people are a paycheck away from feeling "very poor" (even if they will own color TVs) and hearing "Eh, no need to worry about you; you've got food stamps and welfare" isn't really what you want from a president. That would be exactly the moment I'd want them to care most about me, when I'm hitting bottom.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#673 Feb 03 2012 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Not only that, but his full quote even alienates fiscal conservatives.

They don't want the safety net there!!!
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#674 Feb 03 2012 at 7:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, if he mad everyone mad, he must be a moderate!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#675 Feb 03 2012 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,543 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, if he mad everyone mad, he must be a moderate!


Or a nincompoop.

____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#676 Feb 03 2012 at 4:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
So you change the meaning of what the guy was saying from "We don't need to worry about this group because we're already taking care of them" to "we don't care about this group". And you think that's just being "incomplete"?


Well, your "accurate" quote should at least be accurate.


Are you kidding me?

Quote:
He did say "I don't care about the very poor, because...." and I forget the exact wording, but because there's a safety net for them already, was the import.


No. The media has repeated the claim that "Romney said he didn't care about the very poor" over and over, so now you think that's what he said. What he actually said was: "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there if it needs repair I'll fix it.".

What's so astounding is that you quoted me talking about this change of words, then repeated exactly the incorrect words that I said were being used. He did not *ever* say that he didn't care about the poor. You repeat those words because those are the words you keep hearing from the media sources you're reading/watching/hearing. That's my point though. You're reacting to their false quotes, and *not* to the words he actually said. So much so that when I paraphrased him by using the phrase "don't need to worry" you attempted to correct me and insisted that he actually said "I don't care".


He didn't. He said he was not concerned about the very poor. Which, I would hope you realize is pretty synonymous with "not worried". It's not even remotely close to not caring though.

Quote:
Now, consider the fact that the safety net is there because the very poor need it, which means they are not okay by definition. That's some tone deaf phrasing, right there, even if you understand what he meant.


Huh? He's talking about what actions need to be taken, not whether some group is "okay". We're already taking action to help the very poor. That's the safety net he spoke of. Did you actually read the full quote or watch the full clip?

Quote:
And I agree with his message, which is that getting the middle class back into the game is the more urgent task at the moment, setting aside the fact that this includes finding a way to bring the newly poor back into the middle class. It was still an insensitive and jarring statement, and it came across as clueless and elitist.


It appears insensitive and jarring only because every liberal in the media jumped on a false retelling of what he said, and repeated it over and over so as to make people think it was insensitive and jarring. If you read or heard only what he actually said without the modifications added on by so-called journalists, you would not think it was insensitive at all.


I'll ask again: If what he actually said was so bad, why change the words?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#677 Feb 03 2012 at 4:24 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What's the view like from up there on your cross of tears? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#678 Feb 03 2012 at 4:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Of course, a lot of middle class people are a paycheck away from feeling "very poor" (even if they will own color TVs) and hearing "Eh, no need to worry about you; you've got food stamps and welfare" isn't really what you want from a president. That would be exactly the moment I'd want them to care most about me, when I'm hitting bottom.


Which is tone deaf to what most people are complaining about. The Obama administration has adopted that approach (spend money helping those who fall into poverty) and the result has been a lot more people falling into poverty. I think that most people who are a paycheck away from being very poor would rather their government focus on things to prevent them from becoming poor rather than on ways to make that poverty a bit more comfortable.

That message resonates with everyone who thinks the "prepare for failure" approach is wrong, and a "build for success" policy would work better. And given how disastrous the Obama policy has worked, that's a lot of people right now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#679 Feb 03 2012 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What's the view like from up there on your cross of tears? Smiley: laugh


It's always interesting how you abandon reason and resort to name calling the instant you realize how wrong you are. It's like clockwork. Do you admit that Romney did *not* say that he didn't care about the very poor? Yes or no.

Assuming the answer is yes, and we simply discount anyone who claims he did say that as a liar or repeater of a lie, then what's left? Nothing. But you'll make hay out of it anyway.


****. If we're lucky some CNN reporter will open up a debate with a question asking him to defend his position that he doesn't care about the poor. That would be wonderful!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#680 Feb 03 2012 at 6:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
Okay, I apologize. I was quoting from memory. Still, I submit that "I'm not concerned about the very poor" is closer to "I don't care" than it is to "We don't need to worry", in context.

At any rate, my point stands. It was politically tone deaf, and it was rather telling about his complete lack of understanding of what it's like to be not just poor, but vulnerable to falling into poverty. It's similar to his saying he enjoys being able to fire people who provide services to him. I get what he was saying: the insurance company, for example, needs to provide good service or the consumer should be free to switch to a different company. But it came across with all the sensitivity of a wrecking ball.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#681 Feb 03 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's always interesting how you abandon reason and resort to name calling the instant you realize how wrong you are.

Well, I laugh at you when I see you going on and on and on about how poor and mistreated the GOP is. If you want to feel better about it by saying I'm just doing it because I'm "wrong", feel free.

Quote:
Do you admit that Romney did *not* say that he didn't care about the very poor? Yes or no.

You never answered if Romney was moral in misrepresenting (i.e. lying) Obama's remarks in Romney's ad. Answer that (yes or no, without qualification) and I'll answer your question without qualification.

Crying about the scary media and trying to equivocate doesn't count.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2012 6:41pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#682 Feb 03 2012 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
So I was reading my daily paper today, in the world section I saw that Trump has backed Romney. Contained in the article, was this quote.

"I don't care about the very poor".

When describing Romney and what Trump was backing. Regardless of what else was attached when he said it, that is the quote the media is going to use.

Ron Paul 2012?

Edited, Feb 3rd 2012 7:57pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#683 Feb 03 2012 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Samira wrote:
Okay, I apologize. I was quoting from memory. Still, I submit that "I'm not concerned about the very poor" is closer to "I don't care" than it is to "We don't need to worry", in context.


I completely disagree. Worried is a synonym for concerned. Care is not. Care is a synonym for "concern", but that's not the word he used (and that's a different use of the word "concern" in any case). You can't even make the argument that he was saying that he didn't feel the need to "provide care for" the poor (which is related to the "give attention to" definition of concerned, except that he said the reason he wasn't concerned is because we're already providing that care.

You know **** well the meaning being used when people claim Romney said he "doesn't care about the very poor". And it's not a meaning that matches the actual words he used.

Quote:
It's similar to his saying he enjoys being able to fire people who provide services to him.


Yup. Very similar. In that case he was also misquoted to make it appear like he liked to fire ordinary folks, when in fact he was talking about insurance companies.

Quote:
I get what he was saying: the insurance company, for example, needs to provide good service or the consumer should be free to switch to a different company. But it came across with all the sensitivity of a wrecking ball.


But it doesn't hurt to have a media looking for words or phrases that can be misquoted so they can jump up and down and tell everyone how insensitive it was. I'll ask yet again: If what he actually said was so bad, why change the words?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#684 Feb 03 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
Quote:
I completely disagree.


This surprises me not at all.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#685 Feb 03 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
So I was reading my daily paper today, in the world section I saw that Trump has backed Romney. Contained in the article, was this quote.

"I don't care about the very poor".

When describing Romney and what Trump was backing. Regardless of what else was attached when he said it, that is the quote the media is going to use.


And that ought to speak far more about the medias lack of truthfulness than about Romney himself.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#686 Feb 03 2012 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
******
44,522 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's always interesting how you abandon reason and resort to name calling the instant you realize how wrong you are.
Yeah, that kettle is black.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#687 Feb 03 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
I completely disagree.


This surprises me not at all.



That a thesaurus agrees with me and not you? Smiley: grin
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#688 Feb 03 2012 at 8:48 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
So I was reading my daily paper today, in the world section I saw that Trump has backed Romney. Contained in the article, was this quote.

"I don't care about the very poor".

When describing Romney and what Trump was backing. Regardless of what else was attached when he said it, that is the quote the media is going to use.


And that ought to speak far more about the medias lack of truthfulness than about Romney himself.


It doesn't matter, its what they will say and what people will remember. Of course there is the ones who will go to rallies with ********** the Poor" signs.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#689 Feb 03 2012 at 9:54 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts

It doesn't matter, its what they will say and what people will remember.


Nothing. People will remember nothing. IT'S FEBRUARY. None of this matters to the general election, kids. Now that the primaries are over, it's just time to raise money until September or so.

The GOP should be less concerned with stupid things Romney says, and more concerned with working to get unemployment numbers up. That's the really interesting thing that's happening now, possibly locking into a "CEO President" candidate because your issue is the faltering economy and the getting stuck with a recovering economy in November. It'll be a bloodbath. Voters have very, very, very, short memories. All of the stuff that plays when people are worried about things getting worse look limp and useless when things are getting better.

Oh and opposition research, I guess. It's so ******* easy with Romney, though, I doubt there's much of that going on. That won't really be interesting until we see which dancing clown they trot out as VP to rally "the base".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#690 Feb 03 2012 at 10:25 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
You don't think a sound byte with " I don't care about the Poor" attached to it isn't going to hurt in November? It will likely hurt even more because people will forget the other have of his statement long before the one the media trumpets again and again.

Also you know why He loves the middle class. Its because they have a higher average tax rate, and pay for the poor, which is why he doesn't have to worry about them!.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#691 Feb 03 2012 at 10:38 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts

You don't think a sound byte with " I don't care about the Poor" attached to it isn't going to hurt in November?


Is this your first election or something? Of course it won't matter in November. Here are a few reasons why:

A miniscule percentage of poor people vote.

Poor people who do vote think of themselves as middle class.

IT'S ******* FEBRUARY. STILL. Do you know why there's no political phrase along the lines of "February Surprise"? I'll tell you why, because no one gives a **** what happens in February.

Voters don't worry about the poor, they worry about themselves. "I think we should take money and power from everyone else and give it to people like you" is the only political message that matters to voters. This is no way interferes with Romney attempting to deliver that message.

It's still *at least* 6 months away from anything any candidate says or does mattering...at all.

Also, it's February.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#692 Feb 03 2012 at 11:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Joph wrote:
Well, if he mad (sic) everyone mad, he must be a moderate!


He is a moderate, socially. Except for abortion but only because he's running for President. If he was running for Governor of Mass. again he'd be pro-choice. Is he fiscally conservative? Sort-of. I don't really think he gives a **** one way or another in regards to social programs, but he DOES care about the rich making as much money as possible while being taxed as little as possible.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#693 Feb 04 2012 at 9:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
which dancing clown they trot out as VP to rally "the base"


I've been thinking about this. Who can balance Romney's wooden affect and patrician vibe?

I'm tempted to say most of the obvious choices have been spoiled already, but I'm sure they can do another focus group and find Palin v.2. Someone Southern or Southwestern, probably, fundy or with fundy appeal. A woman and/or Latino would be good.

Rubio? He's kind of like a woman.


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#694 Feb 04 2012 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rubio might work on paper, although I heard he has some potential financial bugbears in his past. I'm not sure his "Latino" thing would really help the ticket -- he's fairly ****** about immigration (anti-DREAM, pro-Arizona law) and a lot of Hispanics aren't keen on how Cuba gets special "Touch US soil and you're free!" status while a Mexican infant carried over the border and living here for 25 years is subject to deportation after a traffic stop.

Edited, Feb 4th 2012 11:35am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#695 Feb 04 2012 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
Well, they could always go with Alejandra Cabrero, I guess. Then we could have our own "whar birf certificate? whar?!" crisis.

It's going to be interesting when the first national candidate whose primary language is not English takes the podium.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#696 Feb 04 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
Samira wrote:
Who can balance Romney's wooden affect and patrician vibe?
An elderly German man in lederhosen, droning on about finding his real boy son.

Edited, Feb 4th 2012 7:24pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#697 Feb 04 2012 at 6:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
You mean his boy Pinochet?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#698 Feb 06 2012 at 6:06 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,588 posts

I'm tempted to say most of the obvious choices have been spoiled already, but I'm sure they can do another focus group and find Palin v.2. Someone Southern or Southwestern, probably, fundy or with fundy appeal. A woman and/or Latino would be good.

Rubio? He's kind of like a woman.


I'd be surprised to see a woman selected. Hard to game out what the polling will look like when they decide, but it's likely they'll choose someone from an in-play state in the mid-west. The real problem is finding someone less charismatic than Romney. Santorum might make sense, if he didn't have such glaring obvious issues. Without the Rendel machine, there's a real chance for them to swing PA. It's probably seriously an open question if Santorum gets you one additional vote there, though.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#699 Feb 06 2012 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,346 posts
LESS charismatic than Romney? That's really a consideration? Ye gods.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#700 Feb 06 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
Maybe Plank from Ed, Edd, and Eddy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#701 Feb 06 2012 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

You don't think a sound byte with " I don't care about the Poor" attached to it isn't going to hurt in November?


Is this your first election or something? Of course it won't matter in November. Here are a few reasons why:



You missed one: There isn't actually a sound bite of him saying that. You'd have to rely on either the actual sound bite (which doesn't have as much weight), or reporters talking about it in a "remember when Romney said ...?" way. Which also isn't going to reach or affect most voters. Most voters do not follow politics. They don't watch cable news. They don't listen to talk radio. Most voters know only what they see in the blurbs of news they get while watching their favorite TV shows, or see on paid advertising while watching the same.

Quote:
Voters don't worry about the poor, they worry about themselves. "I think we should take money and power from everyone else and give it to people like you" is the only political message that matters to voters. This is no way interferes with Romney attempting to deliver that message.


I'd argue that liberals appeal to that side of people, while conservatives appeal to the opposite, but that's more of a philosophical difference. The conservative who believes in lowering taxes even for people richer than himself isn't doing it just out of altruism. He also believes that he benefits from this as well (in a variety of ways). You are correct though that the liberal argument is purely about telling people to vote directly for their own personal self interest. It's why the argument about raising taxes on "the rich" works so well. Most voters aren't rich.

Quote:
It's still *at least* 6 months away from anything any candidate says or does mattering...at all.


While I agree in this specific case, I think that's more wishful thinking on your part. Same with your "GOP needs to hope for higher unemployment" bit earlier. It's about what you hope the GOP does, not about what would actually be the better choice for them to do. The reality is that the left uses a constant repetitive message to affect people's opinions. The specifics don't matter, of course, but the general feel of what is said and how that affects perceptions of candidates in a race absolutely does.


They wont parrot the line Romney said, but they will play on the perception that is created by those things. And you can bet that over the next 6 months, the liberal media will not stop finding every way they can to remind the public over and over that Romney is wealthy and doesn't like poor people. And he eats puppies!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CST
trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (42)