Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters

by darth frosty 553 Replies latest members politics

• 

  rather be in hades

  i read it just fine. you seem to lack basic logic. he had to retract the original premise that the camera did not move. i don't know if that was the original statement because from what i see, it's been edited a couple times at least a couple times.

  original premise: camera never moved, it's been chopped

  new premise: it's been moved but it's still been chopped

  that's a retraction. he reversed course on a previous statement.

  leaern something new everyday....

  An alteration that changes the main point of the original statement is generally referred to as a retraction while an alteration that leaves the main point of a statement intact is usually referred to simply as a correction. Depending on the circumstances, either a retraction or correction is the appropriate remedy.

  main point has been altered = retraction
• 

  darth frosty

  Qcmbr-How do you feel about the way romney has handled his campaigne? Do you not find it telling that he needed to borrow money to finish the primary and as soon as he had access to the general fund monies the 1st thing he does is give bonuses to his top officers?
• 

  darth frosty

  Paul Ryan Booed At AARP

  ---

  Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) was booed by the audience while pledging to repeal Obamacare at AARP's annual conference Friday in New Orleans.
  
  "The first step to a stronger Medicare is to repeal Obamacare, because it represents the worst of both worlds: It weakens Medicare for today's seniors and puts it at risk for the next generation," said Ryan, drawing boos from the audience.
  
  Speaking about the cut in the rate of growth for future Medicare spending, Ryan said, "The money wasn't walled off to stay in Medicare. Instead, the law turned Medicare into a piggy bank for Obamacare." That earned louder boos.
  
  "You don't have to take my word for it, you don't have to take my word for it," Ryan pleaded.
  
  Other points at the speech were met with applause, and Ryan was received at the start of his remarks with a mixture of applause and boos.
  
  One remark that did draw applause was his criticism of the health care law's "unelected bureaucrats," an apparent reference to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a cost-control board with limited power that cannot specifically "ration" coverage by law.
  
  Ryan and Romney both support a plan to transform Medicare into a quasi-voucher system, offering private plans alongside traditional Medicare.
  
  
  Romney was booed at the NAACP conference in June when pledging to repeal Obamacare, although Romney appeared more rattled and strayed from his prepared remarks more than Ryan did on Friday.
  
  While attacking President Barack Obama on social security, Ryan also was met with a mixture of boos and applause. "Time and again, this president has ducked the tough issues. He's put his own job security over your retirement security," he said. "Of course, he said he'd be willing to work with Republicans, but he has not moved an inch closer to common ground." The audience booed. "When it comes to bipartisanship, it's easy to talk the talk, but there is only one man running for president this year who has actually walked the walk. And that man is Mitt Romney."

  video

  
• 

  botchtowersociety

  main point has been altered = retraction

  It doesn't alter the main point. The main point is that the camera angle does not change significantly. It leaves the main point intact--that the handling the camera would move it more than the video evidences.

  From your article:

  A retraction is a public statement made about an earlier statement that withdraws, cancels, refutes, diametrically reverses the original statement or ceases and desists from publishing the original statement.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction

  The author did not retract.
• 

  rather be in hades

  that's the main point NOW. that was NOT the main point before. the original assertion was that the camera DID NOT MOVE. that was what the gif was supposed to prove.

  eventually his readers spoke up about that and that's when the flurry of editing began.

  a retraction. a dishonest one.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  that's the main point NOW. that was NOT the main point before. the original assertion was that the camera DID NOT MOVE. that was what the gif was supposed to prove.

  Here's his main point, which is the same as it was when the post went up:

  Looking into the distance at the room itself: the ceiling and support column, the chairs, etc, the placement of the camera has not changed in this time. Mother Jones would have you believe that1) the recording device suffered an unknown failure; 2) this was discovered and fixed; and 3) the device was either never budged in this process or it was placed down exactly in the same place afterwards.

  I call bullshit. I have had electronic devices fail, sure, but it has never been so obvious that I could fix it without at least picking it up and looking to see why.

  Here is the update:

  UPDATE: Animated GIF. There is a slight change in the two minutes. which could be lighting, could be my poor animation skills, or could be the effect of the waiter’s hand goning going on the table, but is still too tiny to be “fixing the camera.” Unless you really, really, really want it to be.

  NOT A RETRACTION!

  eventually his readers spoke up about that and that's when the flurry of editing began.

  a retraction. a dishonest one.

  Really? Where is the editing? There is an update, but no editing. Where's your proof, or are you talking out your ass again?
• 

  Qcmbr

  Romney's campaign so far has been a series of pyrrhic victories IMO. He won debate after debate and knocked over each candidate but what was required to do so cost him more and more both financially and in credibility. The Mitt that was portrayed by the nomination is the Mitt that the Republican party forced him to be, it is not authentic, it is not honest and it is not inspirational. He is a reflection of a party that has been heavily influenced by fear in a time of financial crisis.

  The real Mitt is a businessman who fixes problems by any means possible. Few businessmen run business primarily on principle because principle doesn't meet practical day to day needs. Mitt saved a winter Olympics by every means possible including public funding. Idealists may rail and say that any subsequent anti-bailout / subsidy talk is therefore hypocritical but the real world isn't ideal. Mitt wasn't running for POTUS on a platform of reduced government spending due to a crippling debt crisis when he saved the winter Olympics. Only a genuine ideologue , politician, or an undereducated commentator would suggest that the solution to both radically different problems would be the same. Ditto when as a businessman his aim was to maximise business capital not to create/save jobs.

  I think he is a victim of republican internal politics forced to present himself other than he is, I think his delivery is awkward because he can't be himself, he has to appease right wing extremists , fiscal conservatives and independents understandably charmed by Obama (authentic Mitt would act in a business manner, building partnerships with whomever he could, allocating resources efficiently etc.)

  Obama is a great leader, I just don't know if what makes him great is what is needed because I don't think his skillset lends itself to a financial crisis ( he's a social reformer.)
• 

  King Solomon

  Q said;

  financial choices that maximises personal wealth shouldn't be eligible for leadership in a time of financial Armageddon then I'm all ears.

  The problem is, Mitt's wealth was created akin to the way vultures are supposed to eat dead carcasses after Armageddon. He is a VULTURE capitalist, which means he thrived off the misfortune of others. Heck, he exacerbated their deaths, as the Grim Reaper of the business World: that's what venture capitalists do, to maximize their profits.

  Now sure, those vultures may get fat and happy by eating all those bloated carcasses, but the US doesn't need a vulture: it needs someone who's able to to prevent the walking wounded from BECOMING carcasses. What few plans he's shown suggest that he's more likely to do the former, trying to fix America by relying on unsound policies that have never worked before.
• 

  Qcmbr

  I think the idea of vulture is probably too harsh. I think such organisation as Staples would refute your concept of merely a scavenger. Some companies are failing and need to have the knife put to them, some just need a bit of over capacity reduced and others just need a bit of reorganisation. Exactly like the US. It's way too sensational to say he simply sacked people, whether you like him or not he is a financial genius and he got some really good businesses off and running again and killed off some that needed to be put out of their misery. Sacking people sucks, losing jobs causes real pain but that is the reality of a capitalist economy not a character flaw in Mitt.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  How do you earn your living, KS?