Medicare or Coal?

[BigBlueAlum 12]

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for the rest of his life.

 

Implying that RMoney wants to "teach poor people to fish"? Give me a break.

 

He has already made it clear that those "47%" of people are not his concern.

 

If you all want to talk about damning sound bites, so can I.

Edited October 3, 2012 by BigBlueAlum

[BigBlueAlum 12]

In comparison to Romney, yes.

 

But how is Obama "for" poor people?

 

Does he want to make sure the working class have jobs, are self relient and able to provide for themselves?

 

Or does he want to house those who choose not to work, provide medical care for those same people, and make the working class dependent on the government?

 

there is a big difference in the two

 

Im all for help form those in need and taxing the wealthy to invest in the future of this country but I am against handouts for those who choose not to work. That, combined with my belief that Romney has a better economic plan is why im not going to vote for Obama

 

The problem is that everyone that uses government assistance doesn't simply "choose not to work". There are many people that take advantage of the system, but there are more that legitimately need the assistance. I just hope none of you all are ever in a position where you need a little help, because then you will be accused of being lazy and "choosing not to work".

 

Besides, how can you say RMoney has a better economic plan, when he himself refuses to talk about the details of the "big cuts" that he plans to make? I guess we should just wait until we elect him to see what he has planned.

Edited October 3, 2012 by BigBlueAlum

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Implying that RMoney wants to "teach poor people to fish"? Give me a break.

 

He has already made it clear that those "47%" of people are not his concern.

 

If you all want to talk about damning sound bites, so can I.

 

That's a red herring if I've EVER seen one. But I'll bite, because it's such an easy retort.

 

Romney's soundbyte was actually closer to truth than you, or many on the left side of the aisle, want to believe. The first half of Romney's statement was, and I paraphrase, "47% of people are going to vote for Obama, no matter what". Rasmussen polling data, the most accurate in the United States, shows that 43% of Americans have made up their minds to vote for Romney, and 42% of Americans have made up their minds to vote for Obama, leaving 15% open to influence. So, in reality, Romney was on the correct line of reasoning, but was 5% off. BURN THE SOULLESS REPUBLICAN AT THE STAKE!!!

 

Another funny little quirk I find about many on the left is that they will take a two-part quote like what Romney made, in which one part is solid truth and the other is solid falsehood, and attack the CORRECT part of the quote. It's damn clear to anyone paying attention that the vast majority of the nation has its collective mind made up, and it's folly to argue this when you see data like what I've cited above. The SECOND half of the quote was there the damage truly lies, and Romney was dead wrong to imply that those same people are the ones not paying income tax or are the ones bleeding this country dry with government handouts.

 

And you're trying to goad me for using Obama's "necessarily skyrocket", which he then backed up by proffering EPA regulations that aim to do EXACTLY THAT?! And that's compounded on Stephen Chu's dream to make gas prices rise to $9.00/gallon or higher.

 

That's...unbelievable. And I would expect better from you.

[mavsgrad 28]

Implying that RMoney wants to "teach poor people to fish"? Give me a break.

 

He has already made it clear that those "47%" of people are not his concern.

 

If you all want to talk about damning sound bites, so can I.

 

I think what Gov. Romney was implying is that those people who are content sponging of the tax payers and the government aren't likely to vote for him anyway so why spend time trying to convince them. It was a poor choice of words no doubt but he points out a very real truth. If you give people money and they don't have to work for it then they make little effort to find work.

 

Btw, the latest "damning sound bite" came from our VP yesterday when he said that the middle class has been buried for the last 4 years. Indeed it has been Joe, and that was on your watch along with your boss. Time to go a different direction!

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Btw, the latest "damning sound bite" came from our VP yesterday when he said that the middle class has been buried for the last 4 years. Indeed it has been Joe, and that was on your watch along with your boss. Time to go a different direction!

 

Over/under on the times CNN will cover this. I set the line at 1.5.

[BigBlueAlum 12]

 

Romney's soundbyte was actually closer to truth than you, or many on the left side of the aisle, want to believe. The first half of Romney's statement was, and I paraphrase, "47% of people are going to vote for Obama, no matter what". Rasmussen polling data, the most accurate in the United States, shows that 43% of Americans have made up their minds to vote for Romney, and 42% of Americans have made up their minds to vote for Obama, leaving 15% open to influence. So, in reality, Romney was on the correct line of reasoning, but was 5% off. BURN THE SOULLESS REPUBLICAN AT THE STAKE!!!

 

See, this is where you an I see it differently. When Willard referenced the 47% of people that are going to vote for Obama, I think he was referring to the 47% of people that do not pay income taxes in America, which is a correct figure, and not the 42% that have already made up their mind.

 

Another funny little quirk I find about many on the left is that they will take a two-part quote like what Romney made, in which one part is solid truth and the other is solid falsehood, and attack the CORRECT part of the quote.

 

Ok, so now stating an incorrect "fact" is considered "solid truth". The last time I checked fudging a number by over 10% is not a "solid truth", assuming he was in fact referring to the people that have already made up their mind..which he clearly wasn't, since he goes on to clearly state who he is talking about (HINT: Its those people that don't pay income taxes)

 

 

That's...unbelievable. And I would expect better from you.

 

You really shouldn't.

[BigBlueAlum 12]

I think what Gov. Romney was implying is that those people who are content sponging of the tax payers and the government aren't likely to vote for him anyway so why spend time trying to convince them. It was a poor choice of words no doubt but he points out a very real truth. If you give people money and they don't have to work for it then they make little effort to find work.

 

Btw, the latest "damning sound bite" came from our VP yesterday when he said that the middle class has been buried for the last 4 years. Indeed it has been Joe, and that was on your watch along with your boss. Time to go a different direction!

 

Except, a good portion of that 47% are people that tend to actually vote for RMoney. Only about 7% of that 47% do not work at all, the rest are people working, but not making enough to pay income taxes (but still pay payroll taxes) and the elderly. Not to mention the fact that the percentage of non-income tax payers that come from conservative states is much higher than the percentage in liberal states.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/19/us/politics/who-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes.html

[HurricaneWarning 212]

Except, a good portion of that 47% are people that tend to actually vote for RMoney. Only about 7% of that 47% do not work at all, the rest are people working, but not making enough to pay income taxes (but still pay payroll taxes) and the elderly. Not to mention the fact that the percentage of non-income tax payers that come from conservative states is much higher than the percentage in liberal states.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/19/us/politics/who-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes.html

 

I see you called Romney RMoney. What is the big deal the man has money? Myself I do not see anything wrong with it as I`m sure you have no problem with Obama being a socialist.

[BHS03 99]

This thread proves exactly that the media CAN determine the outcome of an election. Way too many listen to media talking points to influence their thinking instead of looking at facts and where a candidate stands on certain issues.

 

The average American voter is not educated very well on the candidates or the issues. To put it frankly, the average American voter is ignorant. Examples: "I'm not voting for Obama because he is a muslim." Or "I'm voting for Obama because he will pay for my gas." Yes, people actually said that.

 

I had an aunt who tried to influence me to vote for John Kerry in 2004 because she claimed that if Bush was re-elected that there would be a draft and I would be going to fight. If she wasn't my aunt I would have smacked her.

 

 

The 47% comment is also something that has been blown way out of proportion by the media, yet people like you BigBlueAlum fall for it...Hook, Line and Sinker. As UVA pointed out, Romney's words were poorly worded but his reasoning was clearly taken out of context. You are basically saying that somehow, someway, that if Romney gets elected that he is going to get a file on each person that makes up that 47% and do everything in his power to make their lives a living hell while he gives preferential treatment to those who do vote for him. See how ignorant that sounds? Exactly!

[BigBlueAlum 12]

This thread proves exactly that the media CAN determine the outcome of an election. Way too many listen to media talking points to influence their thinking instead of looking at facts and where a candidate stands on certain issues.

 

The average American voter is not educated very well on the candidates or the issues. To put it frankly, the average American voter is ignorant. Examples: "I'm not voting for Obama because he is a muslim." Or "I'm voting for Obama because he will pay for my gas." Yes, people actually said that.

 

I had an aunt who tried to influence me to vote for John Kerry in 2004 because she claimed that if Bush was re-elected that there would be a draft and I would be going to fight. If she wasn't my aunt I would have smacked her.

 

 

The 47% comment is also something that has been blown way out of proportion by the media, yet people like you BigBlueAlum fall for it...Hook, Line and Sinker. As UVA pointed out, Romney's words were poorly worded but his reasoning was clearly taken out of context. You are basically saying that somehow, someway, that if Romney gets elected that he is going to get a file on each person that makes up that 47% and do everything in his power to make their lives a living hell while he gives preferential treatment to those who do vote for him. See how ignorant that sounds? Exactly!

 

Im glad you know exactly how I come to my conclusions about politics. The truth is that I am intelligent enough to analyze the facts and come to my own conclusions. The fact is that Rmoney said that the 47% of people that do not pay income tax believe they are entitles victims and that he shouldn't worry about them because they will never take personal responsibility. There is no reason to believe that he was referring to the 42% (UVAO's number) of people that will vote democrat no matter what. Dont believe me here is his exact quote:

 

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

 

As to the last part of your statement, you are putting words into my mouth. All I did was take exactly what Willard said and explain what I think it means. I never said he was going to specifically work to make hell for the people that don't vote for him (Although that has been said by conservatives about Obama), he said that his job is not to worry about the people that don't pay income tax, because they will never take personal responsibility. Just like Deuces Nana.

[BHS03 99]

As to the last part of your statement, you are putting words into my mouth. All I did was take exactly what Willard said and explain what I think it means. I never said he was going to specifically work to make hell for the people that don't vote for him (Although that has been said by conservatives about Obama), he said that his job is not to worry about the people that don't pay income tax, because they will never take personal responsibility. Just like Deuces Nana.

 

And he meant that it is not his job to worry about convincing those people to vote for him because it is a waste of time. We have already agreed that his % is probably incorrect but he is absolutely right. Why would he try to convince the "Obama gave me a phone" lady to vote for him? It would be worthless.

 

His message is real simple and what this country desperately needs. His job is to help the people who are able and willing to help themselves.

[redtiger 1,742]

The problem is that everyone that uses government assistance doesn't simply "choose not to work". There are many people that take advantage of the system, but there are more that legitimately need the assistance. I just hope none of you all are ever in a position where you need a little help, because then you will be accused of being lazy and "choosing not to work".

 

Im not against government aid, in fact im all for it for those who truly need it. Im just against paying peoples rent because they cant hold down a consistant job(VA is now doing this), giving SSDI to people in their 20s and 30s because they cant handle stress, I am completly against EBT cards(I prefer gov food boxes), unemployement benefits that are WAY out of control(see-econommic stupidity thread), and so on and so forth. There are those who need and deserve government help and then there are those that our current system allows to mooch. We need to cut off the moochers.

 

and before anyone says that I have never been in a situation where I needed those benefits; I have drawn checks from unemployement(for a few weeks, as has my step-dad and brother), when I was little we had foodstamps, I have recieved some Pell Grants which helped me through college, I have taken out alot of Gov subsidized loans and when I was little we recieved HUD. My grandmother also recieves disability and other gov assistance, without it I dont know what she would do. Without gov assistance I(and my family) would not be where we are today, but we didnt just sit around and let the gov take care of us. Alot of people do and im against that, as well as any system that allows that.

[BHS03 99]

Im not against government aid, in fact im all for it for those who truly need it. Im just against paying peoples rent because they cant hold down a consistant job(VA is now doing this), giving SSDI to people in their 20s and 30s because they cant handle stress, I am completly against EBT cards(I prefer gov food boxes), unemployement benefits that are WAY out of control(see-econommic stupidity thread), and so on and so forth. There are those who need and deserve government help and then there are those that our current system allows to mooch. We need to cut off the moochers.

 

and before anyone says that I have never been in a situation where I needed those benefits; I have drawn checks from unemployement(for a few weeks, as has my step-dad and brother), when I was little we had foodstamps, I have recieved some Pell Grants which helped me through college, I have taken out alot of Gov subsidized loans and when I was little we recieved HUD. My grandmother also recieves disability and other gov assistance, without it I dont know what she would do. Without gov assistance I(and my family) would not be where we are today, but we didnt just sit around and let the gov take care of us. Alot of people do and im against that, as well as any system that allows that.

 

Great post! What you said is exactly how most conservatives feel. However, the words get spun into that we don't want to take care of grandma or the little man.

[face-n-dacrowd 23]

Thanks for to the info fellers. I watched the debate last night and been reading on some things. Thought this is an interesting piece

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/04/us-coal-shares-idUSBRE8930ZD20121004

[Hacker 82]

Thanks for to the info fellers. I watched the debate last night and been reading on some things. Thought this is an interesting piece

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/04/us-coal-shares-idUSBRE8930ZD20121004

 

http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/10/more-on-coal-and-utility-money-ties-to-va-politicians.html

 

Surprise, look at where their money goes.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

There is no reason to believe that he was referring to the 42% (UVAO's number) of people that will vote democrat no matter what. Dont believe me here is his exact quote:

 

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...

 

 

The error, of course, is the spiel that follows it. It's incorrect. It's absurd. I agree with that.

 

BUT...to ignore and argue against the fact that Romney wasn't close to target with his first sentence is like stading right in front of the Grand Canyon and saying "I don't see it." THAT is the part you were initially attacking, which is the only correct statement in the paragraph. You want to attack the 6 sentences that follow that, go right ahead. It's fertile ground. You did not pick your battle wisely there.

Edited October 4, 2012 by UVAObserver

[bhs7695 185]

A dumbass is a dumbass, no matter the address.

 

I'm adding this to my sig.....

[BigBlueAlum 12]

 

The error, of course, is the spiel that follows it. It's incorrect. It's absurd. I agree with that.

 

BUT...to ignore and argue against the fact that Romney wasn't close to target with his first sentence is like stading right in front of the Grand Canyon and saying "I don't see it." THAT is the part you were initially attacking, which is the only correct statement in the paragraph. You want to attack the 6 sentences that follow that, go right ahead. It's fertile ground. You did not pick your battle wisely there.

 

A battle with you is never a wise one, because you refuse to ever see the other side of an argument.

 

What I am saying is that he didn't get the number wrong. He was talking about the 47% of people that do not pay federal income tax from the beginning. In his twisted view of reality, anyone that doesn't pay income tax will vote for Obama because they are entitled assholes.

[deuceswild 15]

A battle with you is never a wise one, because you refuse to ever see the other side of an argument.

 

What I am saying is that he didn't get the number wrong. He was talking about the 47% of people that do not pay federal income tax from the beginning. In his twisted view of reality, anyone that doesn't pay income tax will vote for Obama because they are entitled assholes.

 

GIGANTICALLY LARGE IMAGE OF A BIRD TO EMPHASIZE MY POINT

 

 

I like pizza because I like the cheese.

 

"What!? You don't like pizza but you like cheese?"

 

No, I DO LIKE PIZZA! AND I LOVE THE CHEESE?!

 

"This is why I can never trust you. Now you love the cheese because you hate pepperoni."

 

No, I like pepperoni too. It's okay, but it's the cheese that does it for me. Why did you bring up pepperoni?

 

"Because Obama hates America."

 

I just paraphrased this entire discussion.

[VHSLhelper 571]

Coal stories from Charleston yesterday .

 

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2012/10/22/ap-on-the-future-of-the-coalfields-the-world-is-changing-and-leaving-some-people-behind/

[battleftbl 42]

We could argue all night..... I'm a democrat....but an unhappy one. I never wanted Obama 4 years ago as I was all in for Clinton. Now that we've had him for 4 years, he's failed to do most of what was promised. On the flip side...Romney is a joke. I'm not going into detail, because honestly...without being so biased..try listening to him talk. Enough said.

 

Face it guys.....we're screwed either way. If this is the best 2 people that we have....we're in trouble.