2012 Presidential Debate - Third and Final Debate

[Foxfyre]

He would only accomplish this in your dreams. But then he'll only be president in your dreams.

"Romney won the presidential debate by looking presidential. Obama had a painful case of Biden's smile"
Romney won the presidential debate by looking presidential. Obama had a painful case of Biden's smile – Telegraph Blogs

Why do you want to support someone who says, if you want to better yourself, start a business, go to college. If you don’t have the money to do this, borrow the money from your parents, which is a great idea. But not everyone has parents who can afford to pay for their child’s college education, let alone start up costs for a business. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIa4VdtKlO0]Romney: Borrow Money From Your Parents - YouTube[/ame]

Why would you support someone who has no idea that most middle class Americans don’t have thousands of dollars of cash they can just throw around?

Romney said he has a different plan to fix the USA, yet he has hired most of GW Bush economic and national security advisors. Why would you vote for more Bush economics, the same plan that drove our country to the brink of economic disaster? Who

Why would you vote for Romney when you understand that he wants to further lower taxes, while increasing military spending? GW Bush did the same thing and how did that work out for the USA? nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

Why would you vote for Romney when he has stated that he will go to war with Iran? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lEsB8p8zc0]Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval - YouTube[/ame]

IHT World Blog

We support somebody who thinks like that because thati is the way the world worked before the nanny state in which people are taught that they are entitled to what other people have earned. My husband and I didn't have parents we could borrow from either, so we worked and saved and did without a lot of fun stuff so that our kids could go to college and then so that we could go into business for ourselves. And we are proud of that and especially that it succeeded. Our kids were raised with values that they could achieve anything by using the gifts God gave them and they have both succeeded beyond anything hubby and I have accomplished.

Children should be raised to trust in themselves, live up to their full potential, and reach for the stars. If they are raised watching Mom live off a government check and with the mentality that others owe them just because they were born or that they don't need to put out maximum effort because there will be a safety net for them, or it is just easier to take the handouts than to even try, they will not be as successful if they are successful at all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is high level discourse?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...te-third-and-final-debate-50.html#post6210243

Sure, why not?

Getting Obama out of office is the key to recovery. We have suffered with flat GDP and historically high unemployment for 4 years. Time to get America back to work, which means getting Obama out.

 

[Too Tall]

I thought Obama would come with something new, but he's attacking while trying to pretend that his policies have been successful.

They have been.

Read a magazine, stop watching Fox.

He's the most successful FP POTUS in modern history.

If allowing a US Ambassador and 3 other US citizens to be murdered due to lack of security is successful, what would you call failure?

 

[Liability]

I thought Obama would come with something new, but he's attacking while trying to pretend that his policies have been successful.

They have been.

Read a magazine, stop watching Fox.

He's the most successful FP POTUS in modern history.

If allowing a US Ambassador and 3 other US citizens to be murdered due to lack of security is successful, what would you call failure?

Enough evidence and concrete proof to be forced to admit it?

 

[Liability]

Given the War Powers Act (and without even discussing whether or not there is any REAL Constitutional validity to that Act), is it actually a mistake (technically speaking) to assume that a President can begin a process of waging war on Iran without an okey-dokey from Congress?

 

[PoliticalChic]

He would only accomplish this in your dreams. But then he'll only be president in your dreams.

"Romney won the presidential debate by looking presidential. Obama had a painful case of Biden's smile"
Romney won the presidential debate by looking presidential. Obama had a painful case of Biden's smile – Telegraph Blogs

Why do you want to support someone who says, if you want to better yourself, start a business, go to college. If you don’t have the money to do this, borrow the money from your parents, which is a great idea. But not everyone has parents who can afford to pay for their child’s college education, let alone start up costs for a business. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIa4VdtKlO0]Romney: Borrow Money From Your Parents - YouTube[/ame]

Why would you support someone who has no idea that most middle class Americans don’t have thousands of dollars of cash they can just throw around?

Romney said he has a different plan to fix the USA, yet he has hired most of GW Bush economic and national security advisors. Why would you vote for more Bush economics, the same plan that drove our country to the brink of economic disaster? Who

Why would you vote for Romney when you understand that he wants to further lower taxes, while increasing military spending? GW Bush did the same thing and how did that work out for the USA? nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

Why would you vote for Romney when he has stated that he will go to war with Iran? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lEsB8p8zc0]Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval - YouTube[/ame]

IHT World Blog

"...go to college. If you don’t have the money to do this, borrow the money from your parents, which is a great idea. But not everyone has parents who can afford to pay for their child’s college education,..."

Pretty good point to discuss.

Why do you assume that money is in any way a bar to a college education?

There are a multitude of opportunities that would provide the money, and not just loans.
Scholarships?

Work study?

Junior college...and then transfer to a four year.

Night school.

And...the most overlooked.....college in small doses, over a decade. Have you ever heard one asked how long it took to graduate? Me, neither.


And....even self-study sans the actual degree. Ever meet someone who you felt was really sharp....then learned that they had never attended college?

How about the service.....or ROTC?


One need not be a child, waiting for someone else to take care of them.
Be a conservative.

 

[Rinata]

"Romney won the presidential debate by looking presidential. Obama had a painful case of Biden's smile"
Romney won the presidential debate by looking presidential. Obama had a painful case of Biden's smile – Telegraph Blogs

Why do you want to support someone who says, if you want to better yourself, start a business, go to college. If you don’t have the money to do this, borrow the money from your parents, which is a great idea. But not everyone has parents who can afford to pay for their child’s college education, let alone start up costs for a business. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIa4VdtKlO0]Romney: Borrow Money From Your Parents - YouTube[/ame]

Why would you support someone who has no idea that most middle class Americans don’t have thousands of dollars of cash they can just throw around?

Romney said he has a different plan to fix the USA, yet he has hired most of GW Bush economic and national security advisors. Why would you vote for more Bush economics, the same plan that drove our country to the brink of economic disaster? Who

Why would you vote for Romney when you understand that he wants to further lower taxes, while increasing military spending? GW Bush did the same thing and how did that work out for the USA? nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

Why would you vote for Romney when he has stated that he will go to war with Iran? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lEsB8p8zc0]Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval - YouTube[/ame]

IHT World Blog

We support somebody who thinks like that because thati is the way the world worked before the nanny state in which people are taught that they are entitled to what other people have earned. My husband and I didn't have parents we could borrow from either, so we worked and saved and did without a lot of fun stuff so that our kids could go to college and then so that we could go into business for ourselves. And we are proud of that and especially that it succeeded. Our kids were raised with values that they could achieve anything by using the gifts God gave them and they have both succeeded beyond anything hubby and I have accomplished.

Children should be raised to trust in themselves, live up to their full potential, and reach for the stars. If they are raised watching Mom live off a government check and with the mentality that others owe them just because they were born or that they don't need to put out maximum effort because there will be a safety net for them, or it is just easier to take the handouts than to even try, they will not be as successful if they are successful at all.

Your definition of a handout is quite different from mine. As is Romney's.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why do you want to support someone who says, if you want to better yourself, start a business, go to college. If you don’t have the money to do this, borrow the money from your parents, which is a great idea. But not everyone has parents who can afford to pay for their child’s college education, let alone start up costs for a business. Romney: Borrow Money From Your Parents - YouTube

Why would you support someone who has no idea that most middle class Americans don’t have thousands of dollars of cash they can just throw around?

Romney said he has a different plan to fix the USA, yet he has hired most of GW Bush economic and national security advisors. Why would you vote for more Bush economics, the same plan that drove our country to the brink of economic disaster? Who

Why would you vote for Romney when you understand that he wants to further lower taxes, while increasing military spending? GW Bush did the same thing and how did that work out for the USA? nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html

Why would you vote for Romney when he has stated that he will go to war with Iran? Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval - YouTube

IHT World Blog

We support somebody who thinks like that because thati is the way the world worked before the nanny state in which people are taught that they are entitled to what other people have earned. My husband and I didn't have parents we could borrow from either, so we worked and saved and did without a lot of fun stuff so that our kids could go to college and then so that we could go into business for ourselves. And we are proud of that and especially that it succeeded. Our kids were raised with values that they could achieve anything by using the gifts God gave them and they have both succeeded beyond anything hubby and I have accomplished.

Children should be raised to trust in themselves, live up to their full potential, and reach for the stars. If they are raised watching Mom live off a government check and with the mentality that others owe them just because they were born or that they don't need to put out maximum effort because there will be a safety net for them, or it is just easier to take the handouts than to even try, they will not be as successful if they are successful at all.

Your definition of a handout is quite different from mine. As is Romney's.

No doubt. Most people on the left feel righteous if the government takes my money and gives it to somebody else.

I feel good when I give my own money of my own free will to somebody in need.

Most people on the left think it is good to take money that people have earned and give to other people.

Most people on the right think this usually causes more harm than good.

Most people on the left don't care that most of the money taken 'for the poor' is actually swallowed up by the massive bureaucracy that government has become and relatively little gets to anybody who really needs it.

Most people on the right think this is the most inefficient and ineffective way to help people.

So you're right. There are distinct differences.

 

[Rinata]

We support somebody who thinks like that because thati is the way the world worked before the nanny state in which people are taught that they are entitled to what other people have earned. My husband and I didn't have parents we could borrow from either, so we worked and saved and did without a lot of fun stuff so that our kids could go to college and then so that we could go into business for ourselves. And we are proud of that and especially that it succeeded. Our kids were raised with values that they could achieve anything by using the gifts God gave them and they have both succeeded beyond anything hubby and I have accomplished.

Children should be raised to trust in themselves, live up to their full potential, and reach for the stars. If they are raised watching Mom live off a government check and with the mentality that others owe them just because they were born or that they don't need to put out maximum effort because there will be a safety net for them, or it is just easier to take the handouts than to even try, they will not be as successful if they are successful at all.

Your definition of a handout is quite different from mine. As is Romney's.

No doubt. Most people on the left feel righteous if the government takes my money and gives it to somebody else.

I feel good when I give my own money of my own free will to somebody in need.

Most people on the left think it is good to take money that people have earned and give to other people.

Most people on the right think this usually causes more harm than good.

Most people on the left don't care that most of the money taken 'for the poor' is actually swallowed up by the massive bureaucracy that government has become and relatively little gets to anybody who really needs it.

Most people on the right think this is the most inefficient and ineffective way to help people.

So you're right. There are distinct differences.

Not as you have described. I really hate your attitude. You sound so selfish and mean to me. And I know that most people on the right agree with you. That's what I dislike about them. You all brag about being, "Christian". But none of you have the slightest idea what it means.

“Sometimes I would like to ask God why He allows poverty, suffering, and injustice when He could do something about it. But I’m afraid He would ask me the same question.” – Anonymous

 

[Amazed]

Your definition of a handout is quite different from mine. As is Romney's.

No doubt. Most people on the left feel righteous if the government takes my money and gives it to somebody else.

I feel good when I give my own money of my own free will to somebody in need.

Most people on the left think it is good to take money that people have earned and give to other people.

Most people on the right think this usually causes more harm than good.

Most people on the left don't care that most of the money taken 'for the poor' is actually swallowed up by the massive bureaucracy that government has become and relatively little gets to anybody who really needs it.

Most people on the right think this is the most inefficient and ineffective way to help people.

So you're right. There are distinct differences.

Not as you have described. I really hate your attitude. You sound so selfish and mean to me. And I know that most people on the right agree with you. That's what I dislike about them. You all brag about being, "Christian". But none of you have the slightest idea what it means.

“Sometimes I would like to ask God why He allows poverty, suffering, and injustice when He could do something about it. But I’m afraid He would ask me the same question.” – Anonymous

...and you sound absolutely childish and petulant, nobody cares what you think about them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No doubt. Most people on the left feel righteous if the government takes my money and gives it to somebody else.

I feel good when I give my own money of my own free will to somebody in need.

Most people on the left think it is good to take money that people have earned and give to other people.

Most people on the right think this usually causes more harm than good.

Most people on the left don't care that most of the money taken 'for the poor' is actually swallowed up by the massive bureaucracy that government has become and relatively little gets to anybody who really needs it.

Most people on the right think this is the most inefficient and ineffective way to help people.

So you're right. There are distinct differences.

The leftist-regressive motto is "charity begins in the pocket of your neighbor."

 

[Foxfyre]

Your definition of a handout is quite different from mine. As is Romney's.

No doubt. Most people on the left feel righteous if the government takes my money and gives it to somebody else.

I feel good when I give my own money of my own free will to somebody in need.

Most people on the left think it is good to take money that people have earned and give to other people.

Most people on the right think this usually causes more harm than good.

Most people on the left don't care that most of the money taken 'for the poor' is actually swallowed up by the massive bureaucracy that government has become and relatively little gets to anybody who really needs it.

Most people on the right think this is the most inefficient and ineffective way to help people.

So you're right. There are distinct differences.

Not as you have described. I really hate your attitude. You sound so selfish and mean to me. And I know that most people on the right agree with you. That's what I dislike about them. You all brag about being, "Christian". But none of you have the slightest idea what it means.

“Sometimes I would like to ask God why He allows poverty, suffering, and injustice when He could do something about it. But I’m afraid He would ask me the same question.” – Anonymous

I know I sound hateful to you because that is the way you have been taught to think about people like me. Nevermind that study after study shows conservatives to be more generous with their own time, talent, and resources than liberals are generous with their own time, talent, and resources.

I suspect you have been taught that somebody like Mitt Romney is selfish and greedy and don't want to hear about the years and years of service without pay that he has given on behalf of others. He took no salary as governor of Massachusetts. He donated every penny of salary he receied working for the Olympics. He doesn't ask for an honorarium to speak to groups he is invited to, and if they give him one, he signs it back over to them. He has never taken a dime or enriched hmself doing public service. And yet he has given away many millions of his own fortune to help others.

And you know nothing about me or what I give of my own time, talent, and resources on the behalf of others.

So I accept that you think it is mean and hateful for me to believe a program ought to actually do good rather than just have a great sounding title. . . .for me to believe that private charities do a far better job with far less unintended negative consequences than most government programs can do. . . .that it is not cost effective to establish a government bureacracy to help the poor when that bureaucracy swallows up as much as two thirds of the money it receies to help the poor.

And I accept that you think it is mean and hateful for me to believe that children benefit from seeing their parents get up in the morning, get cleaned up prepare breakfast for the family, and go to work to earn the money they need for housing, food, clothing, etc. And it harms children to see their able bodied parent receive a government check for doing nothing and encourages them to believe they are entitled to other people's money just because they were born. And people earning their own way and being encouraged to reach for their full potential is a far better anti-poverty program than anything the government will ever do.

I think Mitt Romney understands pretty closely as I understand it. I wish everybody did.

 

[Rinata]

No doubt. Most people on the left feel righteous if the government takes my money and gives it to somebody else.

I feel good when I give my own money of my own free will to somebody in need.

Most people on the left think it is good to take money that people have earned and give to other people.

Most people on the right think this usually causes more harm than good.

Most people on the left don't care that most of the money taken 'for the poor' is actually swallowed up by the massive bureaucracy that government has become and relatively little gets to anybody who really needs it.

Most people on the right think this is the most inefficient and ineffective way to help people.

So you're right. There are distinct differences.

Not as you have described. I really hate your attitude. You sound so selfish and mean to me. And I know that most people on the right agree with you. That's what I dislike about them. You all brag about being, "Christian". But none of you have the slightest idea what it means.

“Sometimes I would like to ask God why He allows poverty, suffering, and injustice when He could do something about it. But I’m afraid He would ask me the same question.” – Anonymous

...and you sound absolutely childish and petulant, nobody cares what you think about them.

Drop dead, you jerk.

 

[Rinata]

No doubt. Most people on the left feel righteous if the government takes my money and gives it to somebody else.

I feel good when I give my own money of my own free will to somebody in need.

Most people on the left think it is good to take money that people have earned and give to other people.

Most people on the right think this usually causes more harm than good.

Most people on the left don't care that most of the money taken 'for the poor' is actually swallowed up by the massive bureaucracy that government has become and relatively little gets to anybody who really needs it.

Most people on the right think this is the most inefficient and ineffective way to help people.

So you're right. There are distinct differences.

Not as you have described. I really hate your attitude. You sound so selfish and mean to me. And I know that most people on the right agree with you. That's what I dislike about them. You all brag about being, "Christian". But none of you have the slightest idea what it means.

“Sometimes I would like to ask God why He allows poverty, suffering, and injustice when He could do something about it. But I’m afraid He would ask me the same question.” – Anonymous

I know I sound hateful to you because that is the way you have been taught to think about people like me. Nevermind that study after study shows conservatives to be more generous with their own time, talent, and resources than liberals are generous with their own time, talent, and resources.

I suspect you have been taught that somebody like Mitt Romney is selfish and greedy and don't want to hear about the years and years of service without pay that he has given on behalf of others. He took no salary as governor of Massachusetts. He donated every penny of salary he receied working for the Olympics. He doesn't ask for an honorarium to speak to groups he is invited to, and if they give him one, he signs it back over to them. He has never taken a dime or enriched hmself doing public service. And yet he has given away many millions of his own fortune to help others.

And you know nothing about me or what I give of my own time, talent, and resources on the behalf of others.

So I accept that you think it is mean and hateful for me to believe a program ought to actually do good rather than just have a great sounding title. . . .for me to believe that private charities do a far better job with far less unintended negative consequences than most government programs can do. . . .that it is not cost effective to establish a government bureacracy to help the poor when that bureaucracy swallows up as much as two thirds of the money it receies to help the poor.

And I accept that you think it is mean and hateful for me to believe that children benefit from seeing their parents get up in the morning, get cleaned up prepare breakfast for the family, and go to work to earn the money they need for housing, food, clothing, etc. And it harms children to see their able bodied parent receive a government check for doing nothing and encourages them to believe they are entitled to other people's money just because they were born. And people earning their own way and being encouraged to reach for their full potential is a far better anti-poverty program than anything the government will ever do.

I think Mitt Romney understands pretty closely as I understand it. I wish everybody did.

What an awful lot of assumptions you are making that have no rhyme or reason. Your post is very pompous, self-righteous, and completely overblown. I can see why you like Mitt Romney.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What an awful lot of assumptions you are making that have no rhyme or reason. Your post is very pompous, self-righteous, and completely overblown. I can see why you like Mitt Romney.

So what you're saying is that Fox applies logic, reason, and common sense to her analysis, where an Obama supporter is content with "eye candy?"

That DOES accurately define the distinction between the two camps....

 

[Liability]

A little bit off topic.

I think the FIRST Debate infected the next two debates.

The first debate was such a massive disaster for The ONE that even his admittedly improved performances in the second debate (with Candy Crowley assisting him) and in the third debate were still impacted (negatively) by that first massive fail.

That gets me to the piece I found so interesting. Noonan's column in the WSJ.

Noonan: When Americans Saw the Real Obama
Why the Denver debate changed everything.

We all say Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. But it's all still Denver, Denver, and the mystery that maybe isn't a mystery at all.

If Cincinnati and Lake County go for Mitt Romney on Nov. 6 it will be because of what happened in Denver on Oct. 3. If Barack Obama barely scrapes through, if there's a bloody and prolonged recount, it too will be because of Denver.

Nothing echoes out like that debate. It was the moment that allowed Mr. Romney to break through, that allowed dismay with the incumbent to coalesce, that allowed voters to consider the alternative. * * * *

* * * *

Why was the first debate so toxic for the president? Because the one thing he couldn't do if he was going to win the election is let all the pent-up resentment toward him erupt. Americans had gotten used to him as The President. Whatever his policy choices, whatever general direction he seemed to put in place he was The President, a man who had gotten there through natural gifts and what all politicians need, good fortune.

What he couldn't do was present himself, when everyone was looking, as smaller than you thought. Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself. He couldn't afford to make himself look less impressive than the challenger in terms of command, grasp of facts, size.

But that's what he did.

And in some utterly new way the president was revealed, exposed. All the people whose job it is to surround and explain him, to act as his buffers and protectors—they weren't there. It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor. He didn't have a teleprompter, and so his failure seemed to underscore the cliché that the prompter is a kind of umbilical cord for him, something that provides nourishment, the thing he needs to sound good. He is not by any means a stupid man but he has become a boring one; he drones, he is predictable, it's never new. The teleprompter adds substance, or at least safety.
***

* * * *

EXCERPT from:
Noonan: When Americans Saw the Real Obama - WSJ.com

 

[Foxfyre]

Not as you have described. I really hate your attitude. You sound so selfish and mean to me. And I know that most people on the right agree with you. That's what I dislike about them. You all brag about being, "Christian". But none of you have the slightest idea what it means.

“Sometimes I would like to ask God why He allows poverty, suffering, and injustice when He could do something about it. But I’m afraid He would ask me the same question.” – Anonymous

I know I sound hateful to you because that is the way you have been taught to think about people like me. Nevermind that study after study shows conservatives to be more generous with their own time, talent, and resources than liberals are generous with their own time, talent, and resources.

I suspect you have been taught that somebody like Mitt Romney is selfish and greedy and don't want to hear about the years and years of service without pay that he has given on behalf of others. He took no salary as governor of Massachusetts. He donated every penny of salary he receied working for the Olympics. He doesn't ask for an honorarium to speak to groups he is invited to, and if they give him one, he signs it back over to them. He has never taken a dime or enriched hmself doing public service. And yet he has given away many millions of his own fortune to help others.

And you know nothing about me or what I give of my own time, talent, and resources on the behalf of others.

So I accept that you think it is mean and hateful for me to believe a program ought to actually do good rather than just have a great sounding title. . . .for me to believe that private charities do a far better job with far less unintended negative consequences than most government programs can do. . . .that it is not cost effective to establish a government bureacracy to help the poor when that bureaucracy swallows up as much as two thirds of the money it receies to help the poor.

And I accept that you think it is mean and hateful for me to believe that children benefit from seeing their parents get up in the morning, get cleaned up prepare breakfast for the family, and go to work to earn the money they need for housing, food, clothing, etc. And it harms children to see their able bodied parent receive a government check for doing nothing and encourages them to believe they are entitled to other people's money just because they were born. And people earning their own way and being encouraged to reach for their full potential is a far better anti-poverty program than anything the government will ever do.

I think Mitt Romney understands pretty closely as I understand it. I wish everybody did.

What an awful lot of assumptions you are making that have no rhyme or reason. Your post is very pompous, self-righteous, and completely overblown. I can see why you like Mitt Romney.

Thank you. If you can see that, that is a good first step. The next step is understanding why. And then you are on the way to know what real concern for the poor is, and why liberal socialism isn't.

 

[Rinata]

What an awful lot of assumptions you are making that have no rhyme or reason. Your post is very pompous, self-righteous, and completely overblown. I can see why you like Mitt Romney.

So what you're saying is that Fox applies logic, reason, and common sense to her analysis, where an Obama supporter is content with "eye candy?"

That DOES accurately define the distinction between the two camps....

Eye candy??? Damn, but you are an ass.

 

[Rinata]

I know I sound hateful to you because that is the way you have been taught to think about people like me. Nevermind that study after study shows conservatives to be more generous with their own time, talent, and resources than liberals are generous with their own time, talent, and resources.

I suspect you have been taught that somebody like Mitt Romney is selfish and greedy and don't want to hear about the years and years of service without pay that he has given on behalf of others. He took no salary as governor of Massachusetts. He donated every penny of salary he receied working for the Olympics. He doesn't ask for an honorarium to speak to groups he is invited to, and if they give him one, he signs it back over to them. He has never taken a dime or enriched hmself doing public service. And yet he has given away many millions of his own fortune to help others.

And you know nothing about me or what I give of my own time, talent, and resources on the behalf of others.

So I accept that you think it is mean and hateful for me to believe a program ought to actually do good rather than just have a great sounding title. . . .for me to believe that private charities do a far better job with far less unintended negative consequences than most government programs can do. . . .that it is not cost effective to establish a government bureacracy to help the poor when that bureaucracy swallows up as much as two thirds of the money it receies to help the poor.

And I accept that you think it is mean and hateful for me to believe that children benefit from seeing their parents get up in the morning, get cleaned up prepare breakfast for the family, and go to work to earn the money they need for housing, food, clothing, etc. And it harms children to see their able bodied parent receive a government check for doing nothing and encourages them to believe they are entitled to other people's money just because they were born. And people earning their own way and being encouraged to reach for their full potential is a far better anti-poverty program than anything the government will ever do.

I think Mitt Romney understands pretty closely as I understand it. I wish everybody did.

What an awful lot of assumptions you are making that have no rhyme or reason. Your post is very pompous, self-righteous, and completely overblown. I can see why you like Mitt Romney.

Thank you. If you can see that, that is a good first step. The next step is understanding why. And then you are on the way to know what real concern for the poor is, and why liberal socialism isn't.

First step to what?? Thinking like you?? No thanks!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What an awful lot of assumptions you are making that have no rhyme or reason. Your post is very pompous, self-righteous, and completely overblown. I can see why you like Mitt Romney.

Thank you. If you can see that, that is a good first step. The next step is understanding why. And then you are on the way to know what real concern for the poor is, and why liberal socialism isn't.

First step to what?? Thinking like you?? No thanks!!!

Fine remain stupid. See how that works?