By that logic, Romney was referring to absolutely nobody because I've never met anyone that expects free healthcare, food, and housing much less does 47% of the country believe that. I do get a kick out of how you form an absurd conclusion and then twist yourself into knots trying to construct a house of cards to explain why the absurd isn't absurd. Same tactic new day.
I'm untying the knots. My conclusion is patently reasoned out. The only absurdity is the relentless twisting by the Obamatons. I voluntarily called it hyperbole. Your side assigned the remarks to two of the most esteemed segments of our society: Seniors and Veterans. Now, tell me, which side is being absurd? BTW, here is some of the "other" stuff Romney referred to... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
Wrong. Medicare is not something that they've paid for. You aren't being honest with yourself. If that is what Mitt was saying then he was not talking about 47% but about maybe 2-5 %. I'm not going to debate this with you, because you claiming Mitt was talking about something different than what he said. Veterans have all sorts of benefits that they didn't pay for, Medicare isn't prepaid by Seniors either.
When you call almost half of America freeloaders, I think its fair to assume he's lumping senior citizens and veterans in the mix. I would think from a number's perspective it's practically impossible not to. With one of his goals to start a voucher system in place of Medicare he's basically calling anyone that's not near retirement a freeloader as well. So if you're a man in your 50s or younger aren't you concerned about losing your Medicare benefits especially if you've paid your dues in taxes as a responsible U.S. citizen?
Don't try to win anything by just calling the other side dishonest. It won't work and it itself is dishonest.
Wrong. Medicare is paid for through FICA contributions. http://answers.bloglines.com/Finance/how_is_medicare_paid_for?oo=0 Fine. Just stop. I think my analysis stands up fine to an objective interpretation. Yours does not... further evidenced by your staunch defense of Obama's infamous "you didn't build that" remarks. I said they paid for it through work or sacrifice, IIRC, -- meaning service to the country. Again, Medicare is paid for through a lifetime of working FICA contributions and, usually, a Medicare Supplement insurance policy which is purchased and paid for individually.
Nope. Not concerned. I think he was hyperbolizing at a fund-raiser many of the attendees seem to be in that senior age group or would have parents who are in that age group. Romney isnot thinking about abandoning seniors. Romney's language indicts those who think the government should "give" all those things to them. Seniors and Veterans worked or sacrificed for their healthcare-- just one part of Romney's trifecta. Who expects the government to provide housing and food? Seniors? Veterans? I'm just going by the man's words-- all of them not just selectively choosing the ones that would seem to convey the hostile message I wish.
I'm not talking about anyone's 'side' as I have no side myself. I'm saying that you don't debate honestly.
Evidence? I think I've accounted for the entirety of Romney's remarks rather than just cherry-picking a phrase or two... which is the dishonesty here.
Again if he was only talking about those that think govt. should give them everything for nothing, then he wasn't talking about 47%. You are the one who's saying that Romney didn't really mean 47% he only meant the ones that think the govt. should owes them something for nothing. You're making up crap trying to rationalize for Romney. I'm only taking Romney at what his own words were. I don't have to defend Obama's you didn't build it by yourself remarks, because they are 100% accurate
Except if you take those people out, you can't get to 47%. This is his statement: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. He says 47% of people will vote for Obama no matter what, and they are all dependent on government and are victims. Many veterans and seniors will vote for Obama no matter what; ergo, they are in the group according to Romney. He also uses 47% to refer to these people as people who don't pay any income tax. This second definition also includes veterans and seniors. I'd like to see your subset of people to get to 47% of the population that doesn't include all the people you don't believe were included in Romney's definition.
Anything and everything. He will say whatever suits him best on any given day. He will tell us to believe him because he's giving his word and some people will because he's looked them right in the eye of the camera. But the next day or week or year he will say the exact opposite thing and he will look us again in the camera and say he's never wavered, as if there isn't such a thing as video of the past. Never mind the topic. The topic has no bearing at all. The only question is will it get Mitt Romney what he wants that day. This is not an evil man; he is simply a man with no moral compass. I would cite one or two examples, but that would suggest there are a limited number of cases in which he has "flip-flopped." He has been on every side of every issue over the course of his political career. That's not nuance; it's transparent opportunism. The day eating babies becomes popular he'll let us know he had two for dinner last night. Nothing is sacred with this guy but his own success.
The math will never work because it is just hyperbole offered up in a private conversation meant to whip up donations. You can't make the "literalness" of the statement stick either because not all seniors or veterans will vote for Obama either. It's much ado about nothing... unless your goal is just to raise a stink.
Firstly, you are characterizing it as a governing principle rather than the campaign strategy that it truly is/was. He also talks about going after Independents in the clip. Secondly, you are substituting only Seniors and Veterans in the place of the vague group to which he refers. Choices which he never specifically names but can be made to fit when you further oversimplify his claims. What about the entitlement to free food and the reference to other things? This was just a "we're up against it" speech privately made to a bunch of potential donors that you are trying to make over into a policy.
giddyup, out of curiosity, would you be shocked/surprised to learn that Romney believes what he's being accused of believing? How much of an impact would it have on your opinion of him?
Great. If you don't mind me asking, what would convince you that he is being justly accused of believing those things?
Whether it was a campaign strategy or governing strategy is far less important than what it betrays about Romney's beliefs. I was looking at what Romney believes in. He used his own words to say it. Everyone but you is willing to look at those words and realize they are horrible, and that it writes off many Americans as not taking responsibility for themselves. No, I wasn't saying it only applied to veterans and seniors. I was saying that it included veterans and seniors. Those groups are all almost 100% getting some govt. subsidies. Just because I don't talk about other folks, doesn't mean they weren't also included. What about the reference to free food and other things? Most of the people who receive that don't fit into Romney's characterization either. But if those are the only programs he has a problem with, then he should have just mentioned those. That's not what Romney did. I'm aware of who the audience was that Romney was talking to. That doesn't change what he said. You're just trying to spin it that those words somehow meant something different because of who he was speaking to.
