All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > MITTENS CAUGHT ON TAPE!!!!!!!!!!
9/18/2012 7:23 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 9/18/2012 6:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/18/2012 2:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by antoncresten on 9/18/2012 5:21:00 AM (view original):
And this is wrong?   Should he be villified for speaking the truth?

Simple fact of the matter is that the world has changed.   There was a time when kids couldn't wait to cut the umbilical cord, move out and experience the world without someone overseeing their every move.   Now kids go to college and move back in with their parents while waiting for them to die so they can have a house.

Obama has extended this concept to government dependency.   You don't have to get out and make your place in the world.   The government with cloth and feed you.  Provide you a place to stay.   The kids who moved back in with momma are comfortable with that set-up.   Why would they vote for someone who says "Get out and earn your spot in the world"?
I don't think Obama has done that (extended the concept to government dependency).

When Obama was inaugurated the economy was losing some 600,000 jobs a month. The rational government response to that is to provide assistance, both to keep people from starving to death and to keep the economy afloat so that there isn't a complete collapse of all industries. It's not a new idea and is a policy that has been effectively used by both parties.
Then I assume you don't listen to the radio.

The govt crossed the line when they started ADVERTISING the free help people could get.  The "Could I be eligible if I own my home?" was particularly infuriating.  The message was "Come check it out.  You might get something.  You never know!"
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
9/18/2012 7:36 PM
Well, 47% to be exact.
9/18/2012 7:48 PM
Encouraging people to take advantage of assistance they qualify for is a good thing. It's like advertising that sick seniors can get health coverage through Medicare.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
9/18/2012 9:05 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 9/18/2012 7:48:00 PM (view original):
Encouraging people to take advantage of assistance they qualify for is a good thing. It's like advertising that sick seniors can get health coverage through Medicare.
Or it's saying "Don't worry about taking care of your business.  We'll do it for you!!!"
9/18/2012 9:42 PM
I disagree. I don't think anyone wants to be on government assistance. You aren't exactly living large on food stamps and $900 a month in unemployment. But it will keep you from sliding into homelessness after a job loss and it also keeps the economy moving when a huge percentage of the population is suddenly unemployed.
9/18/2012 10:28 PM
I always thought that my primary responsibility as a parent was to raise my kids with two ultimate goals in mind: (1) to teach them to be responsible, and (2) to position them to be self-sufficient by the time they become adults.

These two goals are apparently bad things, according to those who wish to bash Romney and the Republicans.

What I should be doing, according to Obama and the Democrats, is: (1) teach my kids to do as little as they can to get by, and (2) teach my kids that self-sufficiency isn't that important, because the government will always be there to take care of you.


This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
9/18/2012 10:42 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/18/2012 7:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 9/18/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/18/2012 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 9/18/2012 2:54:00 PM (view original):
See "intentionally and cartoonishly mischaracterizing those aren't backing you"


Honestly, Mike, my post wasn't that wordy. Even your notoriously short attention span shouldn't have been challenged.

Oh, I thought you were joking with that assessment.

"Intentionally and cartoonishly mischaracterizing"?

Explain, please.

Should I highlight the intentionally and cartoonishly misleadinging bits in red? OK.

"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 the 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. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The gist of it: Mitt wants to portray Obama supporters as lazy, shiftless freeloaders. I'm not going to dignify that crap.

Of course, the really big whopper is what's implied by his stats: Those 47% who don't pay taxes (that's just federal, btw, most pay state, local, and/or payroll) are co-extensive with the 47% (completely made-up number, btw) who vote for Obama "no matter what." Hilarious. Most of the states with the lowest income tax liabilty lean Republican. Senior citizens (less likely to pay income tax) lean heavily toward Romney.
Yeah, you'll need to dignify that crap.

With the possible exception of "47 percent", I'm not sure what part isn't true.   If you're OK with sucking the govt teat, you're not voting for anyone but Obama.  

Amirite?
No, you're not right. You're not right about anything.


I don't need to dignify Romney/Miketitty's little game of mass character assassination.

I'm not going to pretend you're little phrase "sucking the government teat" has any substantive meaning.

Oh, btw, you do realize these 47% aren't necessarily poor, don't you? In 2011, 105,000 filers with incomes of at least $211,000 paid no federal income taxes, including 3,000 with incomes of at least $2.2 million. But hey, MittT23, don't let the facts get in the way of your bullshit.
9/18/2012 10:44 PM
And now, there's this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/todd-akin-mitt-romney_n_1894336.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012


Todd Akin is riding to Mitt's defense. Perfect!! Just call them the Macaca Moment brothers.
9/18/2012 10:53 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 9/18/2012 7:48:00 PM (view original):
Encouraging people to take advantage of assistance they qualify for is a good thing. It's like advertising that sick seniors can get health coverage through Medicare.
This I agree with 100%.

I think the govt should step in and help at times. Especially in a recession, when people who have worked their whole lives find themselves unemployed and need assistance.

My problem is with the Sharon Jaspers of the country. People who think welfare and govt. assistance is a way of life. Those are two totally different issues. Assistance is one thing, reliance and dependence is quite another.

See what Sharon says which is bolded below. The passing down of the idea that work is bad and a free ride is something to aspire to.:

She has lived in Section 8 housing all but one of her 58 years. This legacy was passed down from her parents, who moved into Section 8 housing in 1949 when Sharon was six months old. She has passed the legacy down to her own children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits that Section 8 is now requiring. She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana: “I tried it for a year… you know… working and all. It’s not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year.”


So even though she can state that she is "damn proud" of that year, she is so brainwashed with the entitlement mindset, that she can't really appreciate the satisfaction that comes with earning your own way. She wouldn't wish it on anyone in her family?

That is the wrong message to send to anyone, and does nothing good for them.
9/18/2012 10:55 PM
Posted by antoncresten on 9/18/2012 9:04:00 PM (view original):
He never said he would not serve them as President.

He meant he cannot appeal to them as a candidate!
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
of 8
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > MITTENS CAUGHT ON TAPE!!!!!!!!!!

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.