Mitten likens himself to Kerry

[Immanuel]

For the record CG, I think it was you or TGG that used the word dishonorable in a question to me. I only followed through with it. I call them corrupt.

Actually, I believe the conversation went like this:

Immanuel says: Both are as liberal as they can be. One big difference is that Romney isn't afraid to let everyone know that he has more wealth than God; while Obama is little more than the common man that wants to be king of the world. Neither one of them have/had any intention of doing what is right for the American people.

There are plenty of differences such as which freedom each of them want to take away from us next, but the goal is all in the same. Of course, that comes from the party elite more than the man who would be President, but whichever one it would have been was still going to be beholden to their masters.

Sorry, I am in a really pissy mood this week.

Immie

TheGreatGatsby says: Yea. I followed Romney's personal life, career and campaign and I can tell you that's not the case. He's an honorable man. Obama is the scum of the earth.

Immanuel says: Sorry, I just don't agree on the honorable part.

Immie

As for the word "care", it was used in the context of "give a shit about" not in the context of providing for or taking care of.

Immie

I know what context you used it in. And, I don't care if some politician gives a shit about me. If I want someone to give a shit about me, I'll look to those closest to me, not some government buffoon. Their job is to give a shit about the country, not give a shit about me.

And that was exactly the context it was used in... giving a shit about the country. You happen to be part of "this country". Politicians don't give a shit about this nation... you being part of this nation means they don't give a shit about you. It is really pretty simple. Even TDM can figure that out.

As for the honorable part, had it been me, I would have simply said he was corrupt. I used TGG's word rather than changing it. It wasn't my choice of words, but if you ask me, one who is corrupt is not honorable, so, I did not change the wording. TGG seem to believe the man is a saint and above corruption. I do not have the same belief, therefore, if you want to play semantic games, I would say that the man is in fact dishonorable.

Immie

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

For the record CG, I think it was you or TGG that used the word dishonorable in a question to me. I only followed through with it. I call them corrupt.

Actually, I believe the conversation went like this:

Immanuel says: Both are as liberal as they can be. One big difference is that Romney isn't afraid to let everyone know that he has more wealth than God; while Obama is little more than the common man that wants to be king of the world. Neither one of them have/had any intention of doing what is right for the American people.

There are plenty of differences such as which freedom each of them want to take away from us next, but the goal is all in the same. Of course, that comes from the party elite more than the man who would be President, but whichever one it would have been was still going to be beholden to their masters.

Sorry, I am in a really pissy mood this week.

Immie

TheGreatGatsby says: Yea. I followed Romney's personal life, career and campaign and I can tell you that's not the case. He's an honorable man. Obama is the scum of the earth.

Immanuel says: Sorry, I just don't agree on the honorable part.

Immie

As for the word "care", it was used in the context of "give a shit about" not in the context of providing for or taking care of.

Immie

I know what context you used it in. And, I don't care if some politician gives a shit about me. If I want someone to give a shit about me, I'll look to those closest to me, not some government buffoon. Their job is to give a shit about the country, not give a shit about me.

And that was exactly the context it was used in... giving a shit about the country. You happen to be part of "this country". Politicians don't give a shit about this nation... you being part of this nation means they don't give a shit about you. It is really pretty simple. Even TDM can figure that out.

Ah, but this makes no sense. If you equate me being a part of the country as not caring for the country, if he doesn't care about me, since he is part of the country as well, he must not care about himself, either. Why would he not care about the country, when he's a part of this country and if he puts this country in jeopardy, he's putting himself in jeopardy? If he was living in a foreign land, where what he does to this country has zero impact on him, this argument might make sense. But, since he is part of this country and likely cares about himself and his family and friends? Since you equate caring about each one of us as individuals as caring for the country, then he must care for his country since I'm quite positive he cares about himself, his family and, his friends. Why would he not care for the country and put it in jeopardy with the knowledge that if he doesn't care about the country, he doesn't care about himself, his family and his friends, and put them in jeopardy?

As for the honorable part, had it been me, I would have simply said he was corrupt. I used TGG's word rather than changing it. It wasn't my choice of words, but if you ask me, one who is corrupt is not honorable, so, I did not change the wording. TGG seem to believe the man is a saint and above corruption. I do not have the same belief, therefore, if you want to play semantic games, I would say that the man is in fact dishonorable.

Well, frankly, I'm not really too concerned with your "belief". I'm a little more interested in what it is you can prove as fact, that he's corrupt and, thus, dishonorable.

 

[Immanuel]

Actually, I believe the conversation went like this:

Immanuel says: Both are as liberal as they can be. One big difference is that Romney isn't afraid to let everyone know that he has more wealth than God; while Obama is little more than the common man that wants to be king of the world. Neither one of them have/had any intention of doing what is right for the American people.

There are plenty of differences such as which freedom each of them want to take away from us next, but the goal is all in the same. Of course, that comes from the party elite more than the man who would be President, but whichever one it would have been was still going to be beholden to their masters.

Sorry, I am in a really pissy mood this week.

Immie

TheGreatGatsby says: Yea. I followed Romney's personal life, career and campaign and I can tell you that's not the case. He's an honorable man. Obama is the scum of the earth.

Immanuel says: Sorry, I just don't agree on the honorable part.

Immie



I know what context you used it in. And, I don't care if some politician gives a shit about me. If I want someone to give a shit about me, I'll look to those closest to me, not some government buffoon. Their job is to give a shit about the country, not give a shit about me.

And that was exactly the context it was used in... giving a shit about the country. You happen to be part of "this country". Politicians don't give a shit about this nation... you being part of this nation means they don't give a shit about you. It is really pretty simple. Even TDM can figure that out.

Ah, but this makes no sense. If you equate me being a part of the country as not caring for the country, if he doesn't care about me, since he is part of the country as well, he must not care about himself, either. Why would he not care about the country, when he's a part of this country and if he puts this country in jeopardy, he's putting himself in jeopardy? If he was living in a foreign land, where what he does to this country has zero impact on him, this argument might make sense. But, since he is part of this country and likely cares about himself and his family and friends? Since you equate caring about each one of us as individuals as caring for the country, then he must care for his country since I'm quite positive he cares about himself, his family and, his friends. Why would he not care for the country and put it in jeopardy with the knowledge that if he doesn't care about the country, he doesn't care about himself, his family and his friends, and put them in jeopardy?

As for the honorable part, had it been me, I would have simply said he was corrupt. I used TGG's word rather than changing it. It wasn't my choice of words, but if you ask me, one who is corrupt is not honorable, so, I did not change the wording. TGG seem to believe the man is a saint and above corruption. I do not have the same belief, therefore, if you want to play semantic games, I would say that the man is in fact dishonorable.

Well, frankly, I'm not really too concerned with your "belief". I'm a little more interested in what it is you can prove as fact, that he's corrupt and, thus, dishonorable.

If I have to prove to you that Washington politics is corrupt, then you are both blind and deaf. Which scandal would you like me to start with? Watergate? Obama's "stimulus" payback plan to those who got him where he is? Or perhaps we should talk about K Street and the U.S. Tax Code? Tom Delay and his conviction for Money Laundering? How about Charlie Rangel and his tax problems? We've been hearing a lot about Jesse Jackson Jr.'s problem recently as well. Shall we talk about that?

Romney is owned and operated by the people that own the political parties OR he would not have been where he was three months ago, I don't care if he really did have more money than God.

Just because the media has littered the internet with stupid hair cutting, dogs on top of cars and 47% scandals does not mean Mitt Romney is the saint you or TGG are painting him to be. There are ties between him and the Koch Brothers which smell of corruption. When it comes to corruption, he may as well have been tied to George Soros as the Koches. Don't you think for a moment that if Romney had won, that David and Charles Koch would not have come collectin'.

Immie

 

[blackhawk]

The difference between Romney and Kerry is Romney earned his wealth Kerry married his.

 

[JoeB131]

The difference between Romney and Kerry is Romney earned his wealth Kerry married his.

Right.

If you consider putting people out of good paying jobs while looting the company of its assets as "earning" wealth, he definitely earned it.

Except we had a vote on how cool that was, and people voted "that's not cool!"

The ironic thing is, Romney got beat up about the head for his Bain behavior in 1994 and 2008, and it's not like he learned anything from the experience.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

And that was exactly the context it was used in... giving a shit about the country. You happen to be part of "this country". Politicians don't give a shit about this nation... you being part of this nation means they don't give a shit about you. It is really pretty simple. Even TDM can figure that out.

Ah, but this makes no sense. If you equate me being a part of the country as not caring for the country, if he doesn't care about me, since he is part of the country as well, he must not care about himself, either. Why would he not care about the country, when he's a part of this country and if he puts this country in jeopardy, he's putting himself in jeopardy? If he was living in a foreign land, where what he does to this country has zero impact on him, this argument might make sense. But, since he is part of this country and likely cares about himself and his family and friends? Since you equate caring about each one of us as individuals as caring for the country, then he must care for his country since I'm quite positive he cares about himself, his family and, his friends. Why would he not care for the country and put it in jeopardy with the knowledge that if he doesn't care about the country, he doesn't care about himself, his family and his friends, and put them in jeopardy?

As for the honorable part, had it been me, I would have simply said he was corrupt. I used TGG's word rather than changing it. It wasn't my choice of words, but if you ask me, one who is corrupt is not honorable, so, I did not change the wording. TGG seem to believe the man is a saint and above corruption. I do not have the same belief, therefore, if you want to play semantic games, I would say that the man is in fact dishonorable.

Well, frankly, I'm not really too concerned with your "belief". I'm a little more interested in what it is you can prove as fact, that he's corrupt and, thus, dishonorable.

If I have to prove to you that Washington politics is corrupt, then you are both blind and deaf. Which scandal would you like me to start with? Watergate? Obama's "stimulus" payback plan to those who got him where he is? Or perhaps we should talk about K Street and the U.S. Tax Code? Tom Delay and his conviction for Money Laundering? How about Charlie Rangel and his tax problems? We've been hearing a lot about Jesse Jackson Jr.'s problem recently as well. Shall we talk about that?

I believe you are likely just as corrupt as anyone else is and, as I said in a previous posting, I probably wouldn't have no desire to know you and I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you. It isn't a matter of Washington politics being corrupt, it's more a matter of likely nearly anyone one might encounter on a daily basis walking down the street being corrupt. Corruption isn't exclusive to Washington politics nor is it exclusive to politicians. There's varying levels of corruption but, most everyone is corrupt to some given extent, with the exception of very few. Hell, if given the chance, I'd probably even be corrupt to a certain level. I doubt anyone is beyond reproach.

And, insofar as Charlie Rangel and his tax problems and Jesse Jackson Jr.'s problems? Frankly, I haven't been paying that great of a deal of attention to it.

Romney is owned and operated by the people that own the political parties OR he would not have been where he was three months ago, I don't care if he really did have more money than God.

Just because the media has littered the internet with stupid hair cutting, dogs on top of cars and 47% scandals does not mean Mitt Romney is the saint you or TGG are painting him to be.

I don't claim anyone to be a saint. But, again, if you've got proof to back up your claims, by all means, there it would be. Otherwise, again, I'm not too concerned with your beliefs. I take everyone with a grain of salt but I still presume them to be innocent of any significant wrongdoing unless I have proof which leads me to believe otherwise.

There are ties between him and the Koch Brothers which smell of corruption. When it comes to corruption, he may as well have been tied to George Soros as the Koches. Don't you think for a moment that if Romney had won, that David and Charles Koch would not have come collectin'.

Well, since you know so well the scent of corruption and seem to be so well versed in corruption as to be able to spot someone who is corrupt from a mile away? This might lead me to believe the reason why you're so knowledgeable of the mechanics of corruption is that you might not be quite so clean yourself and might not be in a position to cast stones. Why don't you enlighten everyone on how it is you're so proficient in the mechanics of corruption that you can immediately spot a corrupt individual by the company it is he keeps or the manner in which he behaves? One usually has to have a deep knowledge of expertise to be this well versed.

Further, while we're on the subject of corruption, if I recall, it was Romney who essentially cleaned up some corruption, which was going on with the Olympics in the very state of which I reside.