All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > MITTENS CAUGHT ON TAPE!!!!!!!!!!
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
9/18/2012 2:54 PM (edited)
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.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
9/18/2012 3:04 PM
Posted by The Taint on 9/18/2012 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 9/18/2012 11:49:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 9/18/2012 11:33:00 AM (view original):
I worry anytime I hear my elected leader saying they don't have to worry about half the population, no matter the context or the party affiliate.

Just like you guys are trumpeting the 47 percent Pay no taxes line. We all know that's not true.
MSNBC confirmed that number. The Fox news of the left, confirmed it for crying out loud.

And still you would rather make it into something it isn't? You are perfectly fine with taking a statement made concerning the likelihood of swaying a group of voters and twisting it to sound like he is not worried about their general welfare?

"No matter the context"? REALLY?

Context is very important for critical thinking..


How many of those 47 pay payroll taxes...how many of those pay a higher percentage of their income in payroll taxes than people making over 110k a year? If you want to say federal income tax fine, but saying they pay no tax is also taken out of context.

Mitt should try some critical thinking before he speaks.
Sales taxes and state taxes are not paid to the federal government.  Neither are property taxes or other local/municipal taxes (which you did not mention).

It's safe to assume that Romney was referring to federal income taxes with his "pay no taxes" comment.  Not taxes that are not being paid to the federal government.

But if you want to harp on Romney's tax rate, I would assume that he is paying sales tax on items he buys.  He is paying state income taxes on his income.  He is paying property taxes on his personal property.  And he is paying any other local/municipal taxes that he is responsible for.  Which would bring his total tax rate up much higher than the 13% federal income tax rate (almost entirely on capital gains) that he paid last year.

It's also probably pretty safe to assume that Mitt Romney paid more in taxes last year than many Americans will earn in their lifetimes.

But somehow, he's "not paying his fair share:".
9/18/2012 4:37 PM
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.

This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
9/18/2012 5:00 PM
Well, 53% to be exact. 
9/18/2012 5:58 PM
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.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
9/18/2012 6:16 PM
Quote post by genghisxcon on 9/18/2012 5:58:00 PM:

The gist of it: Mitt wants to portray Obama supporters as lazy, shiftless freeloaders.




Actually what he is saying is not that "all Nobama supporters are lazy and shiftless" but rather that those people who ARE lazy and shiftless are far more likely to vote for the guy who will give them the most free stuff..
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
9/18/2012 6:32 PM
Sharon Jasper is not a unique case.
I have worked my entire adult life and I can't afford a 60 inch LCD, yet I have helped to buy Sharon one.
I can't afford a two week vacation to a tropical place every year, yet I am expected to pay for HER to have one.




Sharon Jasper has been victimized.
Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 carcass, the victim of ever changing public housing policies.

Sharon Jasper has spent 57 of her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. 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.”

After hurricane Katrina, Sharon moved out of the St. Bernard housing project and into a new, albeit substandard, quarterage. As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper’s senior status in the system. “Don’t be fooled by them hardwood floors,” says Sharon. “They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool–that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black. The 60 inch HD TV? It may look nice but it is not a plasma. It’s not a plasma because I’m black. Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump. Do you know why?”

She has held her tongue through years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orleans city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects. When a near riotous exchange between two groups, one opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard and the other wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue. The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance. The content of her scathing rebuke was, “just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!” and “back up and shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!”

She's also mad about the dining room that the housing authority pawned off on her. Sharon will acknowledge that it is nice and all, but the “man” knows she has 25 family members to feed and the size is inadequate. She believes she is the recipient of malevolence by “the man.”

Sharon directs the reporter’s attention across the street to Duncan Plaza, where homeless people are living in tents, and states that, “I might do better out there with one of those tents.” She further lamented about her situation, “I might be poor, but I don’t have to live poor.”
Sharon Jasper is not going down without a fight. She is the head of a tenant association that works with the AFL-CIO’s Gulf Coast Revitalization Program, which is working closely with the Congressional Black Caucus, which is working very closely with Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to get a bill, operation Section 8 Time Share, passed in Congress. The bill would allow people of seniority, like Sharon Jasper, who have been loyal recipients of Section 8 housing for a minimum of 20 years, to be able to use a special Section 8 permit for a time share vacation home two weeks out of the year in a tropical location.



Pretty sure Sharon Jasper won't be voting for Romney no matter what he does or says.
9/18/2012 6:53 PM
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.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
9/18/2012 7:21 PM
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?
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.