does it really change anything?

the people you'd think this would piss off (who were going to vote Republican) have some bizarre dissonance where they don't see their benefits as entitlements and believe it's just other people, half the damn country even, who are sucking away all the cash. they agree with Romney

KEEP YOUR GOVT OUT OF MY MEDICARE

The "we're all Osama" chants are interesting in that if the voices had a better command of English they would understand that they are saying they are complicit in the actions of Osama and his organizations, just like they project the action of a few nut jobs to cast a pall on all Americans. Of course that is not what they mean, they wan't a threat.

Perhaps it's time to go all protectionist and pull aid to those outlier countries we hope to stabilize and reinvest in offensive systems to be deployed to contain said nations. I know, this is irrational in response to irrational.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:does it really change anything?

Yes, This is not an ideal time for this to break. If this contributes to Obama holding more of or regaining some of the convention bounce in the polls then Romney is in a very bad place. And I've been pretty bullish about Romney's chances.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:does it really change anything?

Yes, This is not an ideal time for this to break. If this contributes to Obama holding more of or regaining some of the convention bounce in the polls then Romney is in a very bad place. And I've been pretty bullish about Romney's chances.

It also perpetuates the narrative that Obama's team has been pushing since Day One. It stays ahead of the narratives of the bad jobs report and mediocre recovery that Romney would (or should) rather discuss. There are plenty of conservatives who were already weak on him b/c he represents the Establishment. This narrative reinforces that. And in the battleground states, losing votes to third parties and voter nonparticipation might make the difference. Obama can afford to a lot of the battleground states, but Romney really can't (Romney must win a minimum of four if they're the right ones while Obama can win with just two).

So yeah, it can be an epic game changer for Romney if nothing else jumps out and grabs the media's attention.

"The president's foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception he has that his magnetism, and his charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like (Vladimir) Putin and (Hugo) Chávez and (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, and that they'll find that we're such wonderful people that they'll go on with us, and they'll stop doing bad things," Romney says. "And it's an extraordinarily naive perception."

And even if that were Obama's entire foreign policy strategy (which is clearly not the case), is that really worse than:

"You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem.and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it," Romney said.

So Obama is faulted for being open to actually talking with people as opposed to just blowing them the fuck up but crossing our fingers and wishing upon a star that things will work out is rock solid foreign policy? This fucking guy...

"get some personal responsibility and ask your boss for more money so you will be able to pay some tax, you loser"

the rate of productivity has skyrocketed since 1980 with absolutely no corresponding increase in any compensation for the average worker, while at the same time compensation for the wall streeters and 'job creators' continues to increase at an almost exponential rate. Mitt Romney (R-Wall Street) may just be the first candidate to not be bought and paid for by the elite corporate hacks because he simply is one of them.

i'm literally speechless about what he took away from his dealings with a chinese factory.

traderdave wrote:"The president's foreign policy, in my opinion, is formed in part by a perception he has that his magnetism, and his charm, and his persuasiveness is so compelling that he can sit down with people like (Vladimir) Putin and (Hugo) Chávez and (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, and that they'll find that we're such wonderful people that they'll go on with us, and they'll stop doing bad things," Romney says. "And it's an extraordinarily naive perception."

And even if that were Obama's entire foreign policy strategy (which is clearly not the case), is that really worse than:

"You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem.and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it," Romney said.

So Obama is faulted for being open to actually talking with people as opposed to just blowing them the #$!&@ up but crossing our fingers and wishing upon a star that things will work out is rock solid foreign policy? This #$!&@ guy...

I should be stunned that Mitt Freaking Romney would have the audacity to call someone else "naive" on foreign policy. I should be, but I'm not. I said it last week... it's actually a decent approach. Take your weakness and impute it to the other guy, even if it's not true. Then when the other guys says "nuh uh, YOU'RE naive," you can spin it so that he looks weak. The only problem is that the technique should only be used when you have absolutely nothing else going for you in that area. Which is what we've got here.

Barack Hussein Obama doesn't care about blah people

There's probably a big chunk of voters who aren't wild about Obama, and may have considered Romney who are now less likely to vote for him. Remember, at this point, the undecideds are generally less educated and less sophisticated voters, and thus likely to be in that 47%. And, of course, it doesn't help if by 47% you mean anyone earning less than 200k.

And the counter narrative is just too easy at this point--Romney doesn't want your kid to have a good paying job, he wants to send your kid to fight in Iran.

i love that he had to call a 10 pm PC last night to do damage control.

"no, i meant the other 47%"

TenuredVulture wrote:There's probably a big chunk of voters who aren't wild about Obama, and may have considered Romney who are now less likely to vote for him. Remember, at this point, the undecideds are generally less educated and less sophisticated voters, and thus likely to be in that 47%. And, of course, it doesn't help if by 47% you mean anyone earning less than 200k.

And the counter narrative is just too easy at this point--Romney doesn't want your kid to have a good paying job, he wants to send your kid to fight in Iran.

a major disconnect in this country is that many in that supposed 47% don't realize they are.

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:There's probably a big chunk of voters who aren't wild about Obama, and may have considered Romney who are now less likely to vote for him. Remember, at this point, the undecideds are generally less educated and less sophisticated voters, and thus likely to be in that 47%. And, of course, it doesn't help if by 47% you mean anyone earning less than 200k.

And the counter narrative is just too easy at this point--Romney doesn't want your kid to have a good paying job, he wants to send your kid to fight in Iran.

a major disconnect in this country is that many in that supposed 47% don't realize they are.

Yes, and that's another problem with what Romney said--it makes it easier for those people to recognize themselves as beneficiaries of government. And, remember, you've got people pretty close to the Republican mainstream these days cheering Romney's gaffe to help them figure it out.

TenuredVulture wrote:

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:There's probably a big chunk of voters who aren't wild about Obama, and may have considered Romney who are now less likely to vote for him. Remember, at this point, the undecideds are generally less educated and less sophisticated voters, and thus likely to be in that 47%. And, of course, it doesn't help if by 47% you mean anyone earning less than 200k.

And the counter narrative is just too easy at this point--Romney doesn't want your kid to have a good paying job, he wants to send your kid to fight in Iran.

a major disconnect in this country is that many in that supposed 47% don't realize they are.

Yes, and that's another problem with what Romney said--it makes it easier for those people to recognize themselves as beneficiaries of government. And, remember, you've got people pretty close to the Republican mainstream these days cheering Romney's gaffe to help them figure it out.

IMO, it creates the foundation for Obama to completely throw off the "you didn't build that" gaffe and become the People's Champion again.

"Mitt Romney doesn't respect the elementary school teacher who paid for her education through Pell Grants and loans and is now making $40,000 a year. He thinks she's lazy and sucking off the government teat. That's ridiculous. I understand your sacrifice, your determination."

"To the small business owners who used government tax credits or assistance to help start their companies--Mitt Romney thinks you're riding the coattails of rich people him and his friends."

etc. etc.

Housh I guess started reading www.themonkeycage.org. Some interesting stuff there.

he insults a lot of his own voters since many of them actually are poor or middle-class in many states and he is saying they are mooches. he's just an insulting man who cares about the big guy, not the little one.

mitt praised a factory in china where women sleep four to a bed and are only allowed to go home around after the chinese new year. and he believed the bosses who said 'the fences we have around the facility are to keep people OUT from trying to work and then ask for compensation!!!'

worker's paradise, rural china

Great discussion on NPR/Diane Rheam Show about the Muslim Rage. Here is yet another something that Americans have a hard time understanding: The State controls television and media in most of the world. This video likely was quashed in Britain, and it would never see the light of day in the middle east (maybe Israel) and most of Asia). We take not only free speech for granted, but also the idea that, for the most part, there is no censorship, especially if it is not something that would put government sponsored American's operating around the globe at risk (i.e., defense and intelligence).

So the oppressed thinking that this video is state sponsored is reasonable, if not logical. To think that the state could turn off the tap is also logical as well as punishment being deal as that is the cultural norm. That it was reported completely erroneously as government developed and being show in theaters (thus showing a lack of understanding that movies off the net need to make money) is a direct attack to insight violence against the US.

pacino wrote:i'm literally speechless about what he took away from his dealings with a chinese factory.

Yeah, I was listening to it thinking, "Is he going to get to his point sometime soon?". And then his big point ends up being that we have it great in America? A two-minute story to remind people who paid $50,000 each for lunch how lucky they are to be in America? Thanks, Captain Obvious.

thephan wrote:Great discussion on NPR/Diane Rheam Show about the Muslim Rage. Here is yet another something that Americans have a hard time understanding: The State controls television and media in most of the world. This video likely was quashed in Britain, and it would never see the light of day in the middle east (maybe Israel) and most of Asia). We take not only free speech for granted, but also the idea that, for the most part, there is no censorship, especially if it is not something that would put government sponsored American's operating around the globe at risk (i.e., defense and intelligence).

So the oppressed thinking that this video is state sponsored is reasonable, if not logical. To think that the state could turn off the tap is also logical as well as punishment being deal as that is the cultural norm. That it was reported completely erroneously as government developed and being show in theaters (thus showing a lack of understanding that movies off the net need to make money) is a direct attack to insight violence against the US.

yeah, this is very valid. one of the biggest ways we can combat future instances of this is to educate people through pushing their own emerging democracies towards freedom of speech. and working with moderate muslims (yes, they exist) to push back against these moronic imams pushing fundamentalism.

apparently 10 people went to a free showing in hollywood. lol.

traderdave wrote:

pacino wrote:i'm literally speechless about what he took away from his dealings with a chinese factory.

Yeah, I was listening to it thinking, "Is he going to get to his point sometime soon?". And then his big point ends up being that we have it great in America? A two-minute story to remind people who paid $50,000 each for lunch how lucky they are to be in America? Thanks, Captain Obvious.

He wasn't reminding them about how lucky they are to be American. He was reminding his fellow rich folks that they have every right to be disdainful of the ungrateful, unwashed 47% who should shut up, get off the dole, pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and not expect any help. Making minorities into scapegoats unfortunately still has political resonance.