Mitt Romney a terrible person...
-
sleeper
Eh, yeah. All I can say, with the exception of BoatShoes who is questionable at best intelligence wise(jk brotha), I have yet to have a discussion with a liberal that I didn't walk away wanting to tear my face off. Yes Republicans have some whacko's; but trying to explain to someone that Romney doesn't want to eat babies is more difficult than you think.I Wear Pants;1309402 wrote:Perhaps, though some idiot talking about how they get free shit isn't really more or less stupid to me than someone talking about commies and Muslims and socialism and birth certificates and such. Just different stupid. -
I Wear Pants
I don't "put on" a persona if that's what you mean.Con_Alma;1309405 wrote:No need to. It might dampen your persona on here from what your seeking.
And yeah I sometimes use more exclamatory words than would be necessary but I do that pretty much everywhere. Hell, I wrote a Cormac McCarthy style piece for a school paper once where the topic of the paper was me taking part in picking up canned goods from people for a food bank. -
Con_Alma
No, I wouldn't suppose you would "put on" a persona. Not "using more exclamatory words than would be necessary" would dampen your persona on here. There's really not more to my comment than that.I Wear Pants;1309411 wrote:I don't "put on" a persona if that's what you mean.
And yeah I sometimes use more exclamatory words than would be necessary but I do that pretty much everywhere. Hell, I wrote a Cormac McCarthy style piece for a school paper once where the topic of the paper was me taking part in picking up canned goods from people for a food bank. -
I Wear Pants
Oh, it appears I misinterpreted what you said then. Oops.Con_Alma;1309423 wrote:No, I wouldn't suppose you would "put on" a persona. Not "using more exclamatory words than would be necessary" would dampen your persona on here. There's really not more to my comment than that. -
isadore
you can play whatever word games you like, but it is standard practice for Americans to refer to their ancestry. it does not reflect on their allegiance to America but to their forebearers. And his ancestry is quite exact, maternal side American for several generations and on the paternal side African for at least many generations. As becomes obvious the intense hatred to him personally is fed by racism.BGFalcons82;1309404 wrote:The President of the United States must be an American. I'm not a birther, and no one can prove he's not a American, therefore that is what his nationality is. If he was born in Ireland and migrated to the United States, then he could go by the moniker, Irish-American, and it would be true. If we want to follow your logic, then everyone has a string of countries. For me, it would be Irish-German-French American. How f*cking stupid is that?
I thought we lived in a melting pot, not in hundreds of separate pots?
The fact he is approaching historical failure records has nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with how he was raised, what he was taught, who were his mentors, who he married and his lack of managerial/executive experience. For you to claim his presidency is based on his skin color is tantamount to being a racist. He will be judged on the content of his character and not the color of his skin as someone better than you or I opined for 5 decades ago. -
I Wear Pants
I'm far less cynical, I don't think the hatred for him is mainly fed by racism. I think it's fueled by ignorance.isadore;1309441 wrote:you can play whatever word games you like, but it is standard practice for Americans to refer to their ancestry. it does not reflect on their allegiance to America but to their forebearers. And his ancestry is quite exact, maternal side American for several generations and on the paternal side African for at least many generations. As becomes obvious the intense hatred to him personally is fed by racism. -
BGFalcons82
What ignorance? Guess what...he has a record now. He is clearly hiding from it, based on the commercials he's approving.I Wear Pants;1309443 wrote:I'm far less cynical, I don't think the hatred for him is mainly fed by racism. I think it's fueled by ignorance.
Are his policies working? Is he a stand-up Commander-In-Chief? Can he be trusted? Does he believe in re-distribution? Does he believe in class warfare? Does he believe that the National Debt is the elephant in the room? THESE measurables are what Americans are judging....not his skin color. Grandiose speeches, Greek columns, "uplifting" talk of being a great unifier, and a transparent presidency work when there's no record to examine and analyze. 4 years after the propaganda, we are left to judge what he has wrought. The penultimate question in less than a week is, "do we want 4 more years of this?".
In elections, not everyone get a juice box and cookie for participating. We will pick a winner and thus, a loser on November 6. His record will be judged accordingly. -
I Wear Pants
I'm talking about the Kenya, communist, Muslim, birther, "wants America to fail", etc type of stuff. That's based on ignorance more than racism IMO.BGFalcons82;1309468 wrote:What ignorance? Guess what...he has a record now. He is clearly hiding from it, based on the commercials he's approving.
Are his policies working? Is he a stand-up Commander-In-Chief? Can he be trusted? Does he believe in re-distribution? Does he believe in class warfare? Does he believe that the National Debt is the elephant in the room? THESE measurables are what Americans are judging....not his skin color. Grandiose speeches, Greek columns, "uplifting" talk of being a great unifier, and a transparent presidency work when there's no record to examine and analyze. 4 years after the propaganda, we are left to judge what he has wrought. The penultimate question in less than a week is, "do we want 4 more years of this?".
In elections, not everyone get a juice box and cookie for participating. We will pick a winner and thus, a loser on November 6. His record will be judged accordingly.
As for people like you, we disagree on a number of policy decisions but it doesn't make you stupid or a racist or anything of the sort. People aren't stupid because they don't like Obama or think he's a good President but many people have a ton of extremely stupid/untrue reasons to dislike him. -
BGFalcons82
People left Ireland, Germany, France, and yes, Africa, for the promise of a better life in the New Country. While ancestry is important, moving to the New Country meant new beginnings, new challenges, new freedoms, and new liberties. Clinging to what they left is to deny why they left.isadore;1309441 wrote:you can play whatever word games you like, but it is standard practice for Americans to refer to their ancestry. it does not reflect on their allegiance to America but to their forebearers. And his ancestry is quite exact, maternal side American for several generations and on the paternal side African for at least many generations. As becomes obvious the intense hatred to him personally is fed by racism.
On another level, if someone worked for IBM, Dell and Apple and gets a job at Intel, do they call themselves an Intel employee or do they put, "IBM-Dell-Apple Intel" employee on their business card? People choose to come to this country, and thus, should become a member of this country. -
I Wear Pants
I do agree somewhat. Despite a massive amount of people giving a shit about where there ancestors came from I think it's pretty silly how much pride people take in it. Things like that and patriotism are really easy to abuse by people with malevolent intents.BGFalcons82;1309476 wrote:People left Ireland, Germany, France, and yes, Africa, for the promise of a better life in the New Country. While ancestry is important, moving to the New Country meant new beginnings, new challenges, new freedoms, and new liberties. Clinging to what they left is to deny why they left.
On another level, if someone worked for IBM, Dell and Apple and gets a job at Intel, do they call themselves an Intel employee or do they put, "IBM-Dell-Apple Intel" employee on their business card? People choose to come to this country, and thus, should become a member of this country. -
hasbeen
BGFalcons82;1309476 wrote:People left Ireland, Germany, France, and yes, Africa, for the promise of a better life in the New Country. While ancestry is important, moving to the New Country meant new beginnings, new challenges, new freedoms, and new liberties. Clinging to what they left is to deny why they left.
On another level, if someone worked for IBM, Dell and Apple and gets a job at Intel, do they call themselves an Intel employee or do they put, "IBM-Dell-Apple Intel" employee on their business card? People choose to come to this country, and thus, should become a member of this country.
Ancestors left, but those that followed relish their history. I'm a proud American, but live my Irish ancestry.
I agree with you on the African American shit. They're black. Not African American. -
BoatShoes
1. You're objecting to the common use of "African-American" in our society...should probably take this beef elsewhere.BGFalcons82;1309404 wrote:The President of the United States must be an American. I'm not a birther, and no one can prove he's not a American, therefore that is what his nationality is. If he was born in Ireland and migrated to the United States, then he could go by the moniker, Irish-American, and it would be true. If we want to follow your logic, then everyone has a string of countries. For me, it would be Irish-German-French American. How f*cking stupid is that?
I thought we lived in a melting pot, not in hundreds of separate pots?
The fact he is approaching historical failure records has nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with how he was raised, what he was taught, who were his mentors, who he married and his lack of managerial/executive experience. For you to claim his presidency is based on his skin color is tantamount to being a racist. He will be judged on the content of his character and not the color of his skin as someone better than you or I opined for 5 decades ago.
2. No, he's not approaching historical failure records...You would consider a Republican who stopped a recession from turning into a depression, passed Bob Dole's healthcare plan that began controlling healthcare costs, eliminated two iconic terrorists and kept America safe all while inheriting a trillion dollar deficit worthy of a second term. No Doubt. -
I Wear Pants
Lol, you can live your Irish ancestry but they can't live their African ancestry?hasbeen;1309483 wrote:Ancestors left, but those that followed relish their history. I'm a proud American, but live my Irish ancestry.
I agree with you on the African American shit. They're black. Not African American. -
BGFalcons82
Tis true that this is a societal issue and OC rantings won't make any difference. It is how I feel, however, and for that sake, I'm glad I wrote it.BoatShoes;1309484 wrote:1. You're objecting to the common use of "African-American" in our society...should probably take this beef elsewhere.
Regarding how it's used for a POTUS, I find it irrational to call the President an "African American". From a literal definition standpoint, we simply CANNOT have someone from another country as OUR President. It's an utterly ridiculous use of the English language. -
I Wear Pants
African American doesn't in anyway imply from Africa but rather African descent. It's a descriptor and accurate at that.BGFalcons82;1309509 wrote:Tis true that this is a societal issue and OC rantings won't make any difference. It is how I feel, however, and for that sake, I'm glad I wrote it.
Regarding how it's used for a POTUS, I find it irrational to call the President an "African American". From a literal definition standpoint, we simply CANNOT have someone from another country as OUR President. It's an utterly ridiculous use of the English language. -
hasbeen
I Wear Pants;1309498 wrote:Lol, you can live your Irish ancestry but they can't live their African ancestry?
I meant love. And I don't think I said anything about them not being able to love their ancestry. I just said the PC bull is dumb. I don't call myself an Irish American and I will not call a black person African American. -
se-alum
Do you have an issue with the Red Cross?I Wear Pants;1309270 wrote:You don't find issue with turning disaster victims into profit centers? -
I Wear Pants
They're a non-profit. I don't understand your implication.se-alum;1309585 wrote:Do you have an issue with the Red Cross? -
I Wear Pants
Why would you care if anyone did either of these things?hasbeen;1309535 wrote:I meant love. And I don't think I said anything about them not being able to love their ancestry. I just said the PC bull is dumb. I don't call myself an Irish American and I will not call a black person African American. -
se-alum
They're a private non-profit, so you can privatize a relief organization without being a for-profit organization.I Wear Pants;1309592 wrote:They're a non-profit. I don't understand your implication. -
hasbeen
I Wear Pants;1309593 wrote:Why would you care if anyone did either of these things?
The insistence of certain people saying they're not black, they're African American is obnoxious. Sounds racist, but I'd feel the same way regardless of the title.
Political correctness is stupid. -
I Wear Pants
I have no illusions of grandeur to think that the Red Cross would be able to properly provide the type of support that's required in emergency situations all by themselves or that other NP orgs would either. I'd imagine you'd hear the same sort of response from them if you asked.se-alum;1309597 wrote:They're a private non-profit, so you can privatize a relief organization without being a for-profit organization.
There are some things best not left to the private market. Because even though their motivation isn't strictly for profit the Red Cross still can't operate at a loss. Emergency efforts should never be dependent upon financials. -
gut
Neither can a government, really. Not everything, not into perpetuity. But regardless, what do you have to say about taxpayers footing the bill - taxpayers that chose NOT to live in the path of a hurricane or tornado? Shouldn't we really be talking about federally mandated insurance, or would it be wrong to force people to buy insurance?I Wear Pants;1309607 wrote: Because even though their motivation isn't strictly for profit the Red Cross still can't operate at a loss. -
I Wear Pants
That's actually an intriguing conversation to be had I think.gut;1309611 wrote:Neither can a government, really. Not everything, not into perpetuity. But regardless, what do you have to say about taxpayers footing the bill - taxpayers that chose NOT to live in the path of a hurricane or tornado? Shouldn't we really be talking about federally mandated insurance, or would it be wrong to force people to buy insurance?
And I'm aware that governments can't run losses in perpetuity but I don't think even most of the conservative posters here will argue that governments have far more flexibility in that regard than a private entity or especially that stupid household analogy some people like to use.
Also here's something to lighten the mood. I think we're all starting to feel this way. Except for maybe Quaker and Ty Webb who have everlasting erections for their candidates of choice:
[video=youtube;OjrthOPLAKM][/video] -
isadore
well i realize corporate loyalty overcomes all for Republicans, many other Americans have familial and cultural ties to the land of their parents or earlier ancestors.BGFalcons82;1309476 wrote:People left Ireland, Germany, France, and yes, Africa, for the promise of a better life in the New Country. While ancestry is important, moving to the New Country meant new beginnings, new challenges, new freedoms, and new liberties. Clinging to what they left is to deny why they left.
On another level, if someone worked for IBM, Dell and Apple and gets a job at Intel, do they call themselves an Intel employee or do they put, "IBM-Dell-Apple Intel" employee on their business card? People choose to come to this country, and thus, should become a member of this country.