That's the Kind of Man Mitt Romney is

[PoliticalChic]

So do I.



Human nature. And facts. I repeat once again:

Do you honestly believe that Willard received nothing of monetary value for his service when he was "employed" to work for the government?

I mean he has lobbyists talking/working with his campaign now and he's not in any office.

No, it's not a characteristic of human nature.....

....just some a character flaw in some folks.

Did you miss the edit or not just quote it?

Smear: To stain or attempt to destroy the reputation of; vilify


Or, did you think that was a compliment?
Perhaps he should use your 'edit' in a campaign ad.

 

[Shelzin]

No, it's not a characteristic of human nature.....

....just some a character flaw in some folks.

Did you miss the edit or not just quote it?

Smear: To stain or attempt to destroy the reputation of; vilify


Or, did you think that was a compliment?
Perhaps he should use your 'edit' in a campaign ad.

Would you quote something that is smearing? Is not believing that he received nothing for his "service" some sort of insult that I'm unaware of?

I say again:

And for the record I'm not smearing him for not taking money or giving it to his church/charities. I have no problems with him doing that. In fact it's commendable that he didn't take government money. I do have a problem with the thinking that he got nothing for his "service" to his country. That's straight out silly.

 

[Jackson]

Did you miss the edit or not just quote it?

Smear: To stain or attempt to destroy the reputation of; vilify


Or, did you think that was a compliment?
Perhaps he should use your 'edit' in a campaign ad.

Would you quote something that is smearing? Is not believing that he received nothing for his "service" some sort of insult that I'm unaware of?

I say again:

And for the record I'm not smearing him for not taking money or giving it to his church/charities. I have no problems with him doing that. In fact it's commendable that he didn't take government money. I do have a problem with the thinking that he got nothing for his "service" to his country. That's straight out silly.

There's a difference between intrinsic value and extrinsic value. That is what makes Romney such a remarkable person.

 

[oreo]

Romney served as President/CEO of the Utah Winter Olympic games and he and Ann donated 1 million to the games--and then he donated his entire 3 year earnings to charity.

Utah, including Governor Mike Leavitt, searched for someone with a scandal-free reputation to take charge of the Olympics, and chose Romney based on his business and legal expertise as well as his connections to both the LDS Church and the state.[144][148] The appointment faced some initial criticism from non-Mormons, and fears from Mormons, that it represented cronyism or made the Games seem too Mormon-dominated.[38] Romney donated to charity the $1.4 million in salary and severance payments he received for his three years as president and CEO, and also contributed $1 million to the Olympics.[149][149]

Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now compare this to Joe Biden's history of charitable donations---

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity during the past decade, his tax records show.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's campaign today released 10 years' worth of tax returns for Biden, a senator from Delaware, and his wife Jill, a community college instructor. The Bidens reported earning $319,853 last year, including $71,000 in royalties for his memoir, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics.

Biden gave average of $369 to charity a year - ABC News

"Barack Obama is the greatest HOAX ever perpetrated on the American population"--Clint Eastwood

 

[Shelzin]

Smear: To stain or attempt to destroy the reputation of; vilify


Or, did you think that was a compliment?
Perhaps he should use your 'edit' in a campaign ad.

Would you quote something that is smearing? Is not believing that he received nothing for his "service" some sort of insult that I'm unaware of?

I say again:

And for the record I'm not smearing him for not taking money or giving it to his church/charities. I have no problems with him doing that. In fact it's commendable that he didn't take government money. I do have a problem with the thinking that he got nothing for his "service" to his country. That's straight out silly.

There's a difference between intrinsic value and extrinsic value.

I agree.

That is what makes Romney such a remarkable person.

I disagree.

 

[bnsbread]

He watches midget porn

He squats to pee

He has Ann make sheep sounds during sex. Baaaaaaaaa!

 

[daveman]

I define treason as something that harms the country.

When you calculate the loss of life, treasure and reputation that the US suffered as a result of our foolish war in Vietnam, when it was a forgone conclusion most of them really were just fine with Communism, you have to wonder who the real traitors were.

It's not treason to oppose Communism...unless you're a Communist.

What if the Vietnamese REALLY WANTED Communism?

Here was the problem. We saw Vietnam as this great idealogical stuggle.

The Vietnamese saw it as a choice betwen Ho Chi Mihn (National Hero who fought the French and the Japanese oppressors) vs. which ever asshole won the latest coup in Saigon. Almost all of those guys were Quisling who had fought for or collaborated with the French when they were looting the country.

Then you had General Ky, who expressed Admiration for Hitler. Yup, that was the guy we were supporting in that war. But at least he wasn't a communist, dammit!

Seriously, man, you need to back away from the Talk Radio once in a while.

I don't do talk radio. I read history.

REAL history, not the leftist revision you were taught, where America is always the bad guy.

 

[daveman]

Yes, it's envy. The rich have money -- you don't. You want it, and you want the government to take it away from them and give it to you.

Simple, huh?

I don't ask the government for money I'm entitled to now..

So, no, wrong again.

I want the government to take away from the rich because I want good schools and good roads and clean water and all the other things governments should be doing.

I also realize we are going to have to cut a lot of things as well.

Has nothing to do with my point that if the Rich were sending their kids off to war, they wouldn't be so gung-ho about them.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-- C. S. Lewis


You will fail to see how this is apropos.

 

[JoeB131]

It's not treason to oppose Communism...unless you're a Communist.

What if the Vietnamese REALLY WANTED Communism?

Here was the problem. We saw Vietnam as this great idealogical stuggle.

The Vietnamese saw it as a choice betwen Ho Chi Mihn (National Hero who fought the French and the Japanese oppressors) vs. which ever asshole won the latest coup in Saigon. Almost all of those guys were Quisling who had fought for or collaborated with the French when they were looting the country.

Then you had General Ky, who expressed Admiration for Hitler. Yup, that was the guy we were supporting in that war. But at least he wasn't a communist, dammit!

Seriously, man, you need to back away from the Talk Radio once in a while.

I don't do talk radio. I read history.

REAL history, not the leftist revision you were taught, where America is always the bad guy.

Guy, not sure what "real" history changes anything I had to say in the above thing.

Real history is that the OSS worked with Ho Chi Mihn during WWII, and they thought he was a pretty good guy, but the idiots in Washington decided to try to prop up the French after the war. When that didn't work, they tried to prop up the quislings in South Vietnam.

Our own officials admitted that the war was unwinnable, and if there were a fair election held in South Vietnam, Ho Chi Mihn would win.

But the Democrats didn't want the Republicans hitting them over the head with "Who lost Vietnam" the way they hit them over the head with "Who lost China". (As either was really ours to "lose".)

This is the view of real historians...

But they don't work at universities that call evolution a "theory"...

 

[JoeB131]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-- C. S. Lewis


You will fail to see how this is apropos.

Yeah, I usually ignore anything from Christian assholes like C.S. Lewis.

 

[daveman]

It has nothing do with Envy. I don't want to be like them. I don't want to get my rocks off firing people like Romney apparently does. I certainly don't want to be a brain-washed Mormon Cultist, either. I mean, Jesus, ever have a talk with a Mormon about how there's no evidence of a Nephite Civilization in the Americas. It's hilarious. It's like arguing with a retard who still believes in Santa Claus.

But my point stands.

What if the Rich were sent to war? What if their children were the first ones to go.

Yeah, we'd still fight necessary wars like WWII, but idiotic crap like Vietnam and Iraq wouldn't happen. If they were burying their kids instead of counting their profits from the war, they'd think twice about it.

Yes, it's envy. The rich have money -- you don't. You want it, and you want the government to take it away from them and give it to you.

Simple, huh?

No, it's not that simple. A nation produces a finite amount of wealth in any given year. It is wrong if too much of that wealth ends up in the hands of too few. It is wrong for government to encourage that. Conservatives want the government to encourage that. That is a fundamental error in the philosophy of conservatism. Read my sigline.

A finite amount of wealth? Yes, there is a finite amount produced -- but there is no upper limit to the amount it's possible to produce.

You know nothing of economics. You think that in order for someone to become wealthy, someone else has to become poor. The great fallacy of leftist economics.

You could be wealthy too, if you wanted to. The only thing preventing you is you.

But it's so much easier to demand that the government take money away from those who earned in and give it to those who didn't, right?

 

[daveman]

Eh... You and everyone that thanked you for that post actually believe he got nothing of monitory value for his "service" to Massachusetts?

Why is it so difficult for you to give a man his due?

He's not "entitled".

 

[daveman]

Yes, it's envy. The rich have money -- you don't. You want it, and you want the government to take it away from them and give it to you.

Simple, huh?

No, it's not that simple. A nation produces a finite amount of wealth in any given year. It is wrong if too much of that wealth ends up in the hands of too few. It is wrong for government to encourage that. Conservatives want the government to encourage that. That is a fundamental error in the philosophy of conservatism. Read my sigline.

" It is wrong if too much of that wealth ends up in the hands of too few."

Is there any correspondence between "ends up" and "earned"?

They can't comprehend the idea of earning wealth. It all has to be stolen from the poor.

 

[daveman]

No, it's not that simple. A nation produces a finite amount of wealth in any given year. It is wrong if too much of that wealth ends up in the hands of too few. It is wrong for government to encourage that. Conservatives want the government to encourage that. That is a fundamental error in the philosophy of conservatism. Read my sigline.

" It is wrong if too much of that wealth ends up in the hands of too few."

Is there any correspondence between "ends up" and "earned"?

That very much depends upon your definition of earned, doesn't it? For instance, is interest gained from an off-shore account in the Cayman Islands "earned?" How about investments in derivatives or the stock market?

Where did the money to invest come from? It was earned. Therefore, all the money derived from that seed money is earned.

See, PC? I told you they can't comprehend it.

 

[daveman]

What if the Vietnamese REALLY WANTED Communism?

Here was the problem. We saw Vietnam as this great idealogical stuggle.

The Vietnamese saw it as a choice betwen Ho Chi Mihn (National Hero who fought the French and the Japanese oppressors) vs. which ever asshole won the latest coup in Saigon. Almost all of those guys were Quisling who had fought for or collaborated with the French when they were looting the country.

Then you had General Ky, who expressed Admiration for Hitler. Yup, that was the guy we were supporting in that war. But at least he wasn't a communist, dammit!

Seriously, man, you need to back away from the Talk Radio once in a while.

I don't do talk radio. I read history.

REAL history, not the leftist revision you were taught, where America is always the bad guy.

Guy, not sure what "real" history changes anything I had to say in the above thing.

Real history is that the OSS worked with Ho Chi Mihn during WWII, and they thought he was a pretty good guy, but the idiots in Washington decided to try to prop up the French after the war. When that didn't work, they tried to prop up the quislings in South Vietnam.

Our own officials admitted that the war was unwinnable, and if there were a fair election held in South Vietnam, Ho Chi Mihn would win.

But the Democrats didn't want the Republicans hitting them over the head with "Who lost Vietnam" the way they hit them over the head with "Who lost China". (As either was really ours to "lose".)

This is the view of real historians...

But they don't work at universities that call evolution a "theory"...

Poor Communists.


Say, did they teach you what your oh-so-peaceful Communists did after we left?

Lakes of blood.

I suppose if you're going to acknowledge that at all, it will be to blame the US.

 

[daveman]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-- C. S. Lewis


You will fail to see how this is apropos.

Yeah, I usually ignore anything from Christian assholes like C.S. Lewis.

Of course. You're afraid of differing viewpoints.

 

[JoeB131]

Poor Communists.


Say, did they teach you what your oh-so-peaceful Communists did after we left?

Lakes of blood.

I suppose if you're going to acknowledge that at all, it will be to blame the US.

There were lakes of blood in Cambodia, a country WE dragged into the war even though it wanted to stay out. Sihanouk didn't want to get into the war, so we staged a coup against him. And the guy we put in was so inept, the Communists took over.

Vietnam, not so much.

Didn't say it was peaceful, guy. In fact, you drag out a civil war long enough, there will be reprecussions. Has little to do with political philosophies and more with the fact that you have years of grudges and payback.

Shit, this country hasn't recovered from it's civil war, given all the rednecks who fly Confederate Battle flags like that's something to be proud of.

 

[JoeB131]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

-- C. S. Lewis


You will fail to see how this is apropos.

Yeah, I usually ignore anything from Christian assholes like C.S. Lewis.

Of course. You're afraid of differing viewpoints.

Well, no. I have no problem with an informed viewpoint. LIke I said, I used to be as right wing as you are, until I learned it doesn't work. (The Recession of 2008 was a Harsh Mistress!)

What I find amusing is that the Modern "Conservative" movement holds Ayn Rand in one hand and the Bible in the other, and doesn't see the obvious contradiction.

Ayn Rand was an atheist who had nothing but contempt for religious people, while the Bible disdains the "I've got mine, screw you" mentality it espouses.

But you celebrate greed and still call yourself a "Christian"... it's amusing to me on so many levels.

 

[Shelzin]

Eh... You and everyone that thanked you for that post actually believe he got nothing of monitory value for his "service" to Massachusetts?

Why is it so difficult for you to give a man his due?

He's not "entitled".

lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, it's not that simple. A nation produces a finite amount of wealth in any given year. It is wrong if too much of that wealth ends up in the hands of too few. It is wrong for government to encourage that. Conservatives want the government to encourage that. That is a fundamental error in the philosophy of conservatism. Read my sigline.

" It is wrong if too much of that wealth ends up in the hands of too few."

Is there any correspondence between "ends up" and "earned"?

They can't comprehend the idea of earning wealth. It all has to be stolen from the poor.

And the give-away is that he believes it to be a zero-sum situation.