Decision 2012
Quote: RonCI first saw Sen.Nelson (D-FL) in the early 70's as a speaker at a Boy Scout gathering. 40 years later, he is still a politician and he really has done very little over his career except stay elected.
Not even sure why you have a problem with him. Doesn't seem to have porkbarrel spending accusations or much in accused in scandal area (for all those years). Supports liberal positions on votes. Maybe that's it? If people like him and vote for him what's the issue?
If they wanted more done in the district one assumes he would be voted out. Again, what's the problem?
Quote: Beethoven9th
Do most people think that a very wealthy man allowing his own brother to live on a dollar per month is inhumane, by a factor of 2:1? You betcha!
More so when it is a guy like Obama who always keeps bragging about how much money he makes. I wasn't a huge Romney fan, but he never bragged about his wealth the way Obama always did.
Quote: RonCUnmatched or non-existent?
My comment was an attempt at sarcasm. Obama is the epitome of...... All Hat No Cattle.
According to the Daily Mail' 2012 expose on George, he is a drug addict and a constant drunk. He published a book, got an $100,000 advance for writing it, and blew all of the money.
Once again, it doesn't matter to the electorate, just like GWB's cocaine and drug use didn't either.
It's a non-story.
The overwhelming story about Obama is that he came from close to nothing, so he has the ability, having been raised in the middle class (and being rich now) to talk to most Americans. He certainly took his oratory skills and his story all of the way to the white house.
The problem with Romney is that he could not connect to the average American but he couldn't, because he was brought up rich and lived a lavish lifestyle his entire life. Therefore, the only voters he really got were people who couldn't vote for Obama. Most of the republican base wanted different candidates, they couldn't agree on who, so out came Romney.
Even on the dog incident, the right thing to do would have been to say "that was 30 years ago, and I made a mistake. I would never do that again". That would have closed off the story.
Instead, he defended the incident, stating that the dog enjoyed the rooftop kennel. It would be like Obama saying, "I had no problem with using cocaine -- I see nothing wrong with it". Except the dog story has a lot of humour to it, which is why the story persisted on the late night circuit. Cocaine, on the other hand, is not funny, and I don't recall much humour being made of that in 2000. Instead, the joke for Bush in 2000 would have been the fact that he was a cheerleader at Yale. Now that's funny. Heck, even Clinton's escapades in the Whitehouse is still being joked about today.
Quote: AZI wasn't a huge Romney fan, but he never bragged about his wealth the way Obama always did.
From the Wall Street Journal
Quote: WSJ, February 2012In that spirit, here are the top 10 Romney wealth quotes. And remember, this is just the primary!
1 – My wife “drives a couple of Cadillacs”
2 – “I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners.”
3 – Annual speaking income of $370,000 is “not very much”
4 – “I’m also unemployed.”
5 — “I like being able to fire people”
6 – “Corporations are people, my friend.”
7 – “I’ll tell you what. Ten thousand bucks. A $10,000 bet.”
8 – “I’m not concerned about the very poor”
9 – “There are times when I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip.”
10 – Romney on Newt Gingrich: “He’s a wealthy man, a very wealthy man. If you have a half a million dollar purchase from Tiffany’s, you’re not a middle class American.”
Quote: boymimboIn that spirit, here are the top 10 Romney wealth quotes. And remember, this is just the primary!
1 – My wife “drives a couple of Cadillacs”
2 – “I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners.”
3 – Annual speaking income of $370,000 is “not very much”
4 – “I’m also unemployed.”
5 — “I like being able to fire people”
6 – “Corporations are people, my friend.”
7 – “I’ll tell you what. Ten thousand bucks. A $10,000 bet.”
8 – “I’m not concerned about the very poor”
9 – “There are times when I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip.”
10 – Romney on Newt Gingrich: “He’s a wealthy man, a very wealthy man. If you have a half a million dollar purchase from Tiffany’s, you’re not a middle class American.”
Stranger still was Duffman's example (if I recall correctly). Obama was saying in speeches, in effect, that he too would have to take the same medicine and pay more in taxes, he wasn't just picking on the wealthiest in the nation. He said it like, "People like me should pay more in taxes." for example. It's one of the strangest bragging examples I've ever heard.
Quote: rxwineStranger still was Duffman's example (if I recall correctly). Obama was saying in speeches, in effect, that he too would have to take the same medicine and pay more in taxes, he wasn't just picking on the wealthiest in the nation. He said it like, "People like me should pay more in taxes." for example. It's one of the strangest bragging examples I've ever heard.
Not at all. He kept saying he didn't need a tax cut, didn't ask for one. (Though strangely he was too cheap to pay it back.) To me that is bragging about how much money you have. As to the list, I don't see how any of it is bragging about how much money you have.
And I never got the problem with liking being able to fire people. If someone isn't doing their job correctly it is better to be able to fire them than to have to be stuck using them. I had a horrible employee once who my boss would not let me fire. The happiest day I had on that job was when I was allowed to fire him for theft.
...and promptly dropped.Quote: boymimboOn George Obama, the story was picked up by major news organizations in 2008.
Most Obama supporters I know weren't aware that he even had a brother. (Please do a LexisNexis search to see the difference in the number of stories between Obama's brother and Romney's dog)
That's all well and good, but you missed my point, which is: If Barack Obama doesn't even care about his own brother, then people are naive to believe that he will care about the average American.Quote: boymimboThey are half-brothers: George was born 20+ years after Barack. They never lived together as children. Barack's father left him when he was two years old and had another George with a different mother two years later. They didn't meet until they were adults. Barack's father did not play a role in his life after he left when Barack was 2.
According to the Daily Mail' 2012 expose on George, he is a drug addict and a constant drunk. He published a book, got an $100,000 advance for writing it, and blew all of the money.
Let me fix that:Quote: boymimboOnce again, it doesn't matter to the electorate...
"Once again, it doesn't matter to the electorate liberals"
There, that's better. I just find it ironic that how a guy treats his dog matters to some people, but how a guy treats his own brother doesn't matter at all. I have a hard time believing that Obama can't spare $50 to send the guy. Even I can afford that. (Heck, $50 would last him over 4 years!)
I've never understood the "didn't connect" argument. Saying that a losing candidate "didn't connect" is like saying that a losing football team "didn't play well". In other words, neither really says much. And the fact that so many Kennedys have been elected over the years proves that wealth has nothing to do with it.Quote: boymimboThe problem with Romney is that he could not connect to the average American...
Simply put, Romney lost because people today love big government.
Sorry for the lengthy reply, but this is a another mystery to me. True, Romney is no doubt a wealthy man, but liberals want to have it both ways, and they ignore the wealth of their own. For example, Mitt Romney's net worth is estimated at about $200 million. But while we always see stories about Romney's wealth and his "lavish lifestyle", you almost never hear about the wealth and lavish lifestyle of, say, Dianne Feinstein. She and her husband have a net worth (together) of over $400 million. John Kerry and his wife have a net worth of over $1 billion (that's with a 'B'). Michael Bloomberg has a net worth of $27 billion (again, with a 'B'). But whose wealth do we always hear about?.........Romney's. *shakes head*Quote: boymimbo...but he couldn't because he [Romney] was brought up rich and lived a lavish lifestyle his entire life.
Once more, do a LexisNexis search, and you'll see the difference in the number of stories about Romney's wealth and the wealth of these various liberals.
For that matter, seven of the Top 10 richest members of Congress are Democrats. So much for being the party of the "little guy".
I agree with you 100% on this one. (Hey, at least we found something to agree on...haha)Quote: boymimboEven on the dog incident, the right thing to do would have been to say "that was 30 years ago, and I made a mistake. I would never do that again". That would have closed off the story.
Quote: rxwineNot even sure why you have a problem with him. Doesn't seem to have porkbarrel spending accusations or much in accused in scandal area (for all those years). Supports liberal positions on votes. Maybe that's it? If people like him and vote for him what's the issue?
If they wanted more done in the district one assumes he would be voted out. Again, what's the problem?
I don't have a "problem with him" as far as being what he stands for--he is a liberal Democrat who votes that way, so of course we are not on the same side on most issues--I have a problem with people that make an entire career of being politicians. From either side...
Quote: Beethoven9thMost Obama supporters I know weren't aware that he even had a brother. (Please do a LexisNexis search to see the difference in the number of stories between Obama's brother and Romney's dog)
That's all well and good, but you missed my point, which is: If Barack Obama doesn't even care about his own brother, then people are naive to believe that he will care about the average American.
Although Obama had a brother by blood, understand that his father (who he never spoke to after he left) had the son 20+ years later. We don't know if Obama gives his brother money or not -- that's between them. But clearly, George published a book and squandered all of the royalty money (110 K) on a couple of months of lavishnish. Would you give your brother money if he was just going to spend it on drugs and alcohol? $50 would have gotten him some drugs and would have lasted a few minutes, tops.
.Quote: Beethoven
I've never understood the "didn't connect" argument. Saying that a losing candidate "didn't connect" is like saying that a losing football team "didn't play well". In other words, neither really says much. And the fact that so many Kennedys have been elected over the years proves that wealth has nothing to do with it.
It had nothing to do with Romney's wealth that he lost. Actually, Kerry and Romney are very similar. Kerry lost because he couldn't connect with the democrats -- he was too wealthy and came across as so. Romney couldn't convince people to vote for him for the same reason.
Quote:Simply put, Romney lost because people today love big government.
A strong Republican candidate could have beaten Obama, just as a strong Democrat candidate could have beaten Bush in '04. Romney was a candidate that the GOP settled on, a compromise. He was not the ideal candidate for president.
That's the republican myth. As long as the Republicans feel that people vote Democrats because all democrats love free handouts and huge government, Republicans will not win an election. Democrats will vote that way for social reasons too - gay rights, women's rights. Most people feel that the rich should be taxed more, not just Democrats. I also think many Democrats feel that Government should be getting smaller.
But even if I'm wrong, I think there is a problem with the Republicans, as there are "tea party" Republicans and then more moderate Republicans, two different factions of the same party. A tea party's candidate will never get elected. To beat the Dems, the GOP have to come up with a moderate Republican candidate and the tea party will just have to shut up. Take baby steps. Once you get the Republican into office, then you can work on going further to the right.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot at all. He kept saying he didn't need a tax cut, didn't ask for one. (Though strangely he was too cheap to pay it back.) To me that is bragging about how much money you have. As to the list, I don't see how any of it is bragging about how much money you have.
So, CEOs saying they could afford reduced salary in hard times, are the ones bragging? And the ones who take the big bonuses aren't I suppose?
That's sheer lunacy.
His brother lives on $1 per month. He obviously gets no money from BHO or anyone else.Quote: boymimboWe don't know if Obama gives his brother money or not -- that's between them.
I can't believe a liberal would ask such a question. Liberals are always giving free handouts to people who don't deserve them, so why should George Obama be held to a different standard? If anything, the fact that he's Barack's own brother seems like it should be even more of a reason to receive his help, not less.Quote: boymimboWould you give your brother money if he was just going to spend it on drugs and alcohol? $50 would have gotten him some drugs and would have lasted a few minutes, tops.
Anyway, since we have now established that you oppose giving money to people on drugs, then I assume you support drug tests for unemployment benefits in Texas?
So Romney didn't lose because of his wealth, but he lost for the same reason as Kerry (who was "too wealthy")? This makes no sense.Quote: boymimboIt had nothing to do with Romney's wealth that he lost. Actually, Kerry and Romney are very similar. Kerry lost because he couldn't connect with the democrats -- he was too wealthy and came across as so. Romney couldn't convince people to vote for him for the same reason.
People have consistently voted for the expansion of government over the past 20 years. (And yes, that includes Bush 43 who expanded government as well.) The American people have elected Clinton-Bush-Obama for 24 years now, so the fact that they want government handouts is no "Republican myth".Quote: boymimboThat's the republican myth. As long as the Republicans feel that people vote Democrats because all democrats love free handouts and huge government, Republicans will not win an election.
"Never"???? Sens. Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz are just a few.Quote: boymimboBut even if I'm wrong, I think there is a problem with the Republicans, as there are "tea party" Republicans and then more moderate Republicans, two different factions of the same party. A tea party's candidate will never get elected.
Um...the GOP already tried that in 2012..........and in 2008..........and what happened? They lost both times.Quote: boymimboTo beat the Dems, the GOP have to come up with a moderate Republican candidate...
And no, I wouldn't give my brother (or anyone) sums of money if he was going to spend all of it on drugs and alcohol. I'd put him in rehab and pay for that. But I would think that for all intents and purposes, by blood, George is a half-brother, and given that Barack's dad had nothing to do with him since he left at the age of 2, not even that, Barack probably doesn't owe George anything at all. I know that if my dad left me at the age of 2, screwed off across the world and had a kid 20 years later and then died without me speaking to him, I would be indifferent to the fact that I had a half-brother. But that's just me.
As for unemployment benefits, one assumes that they are entitled to benefits by law. Generally, unemployment laws ask you to provide places of where you look for work and generally, you have to be available for work. To be available for work, generally, you should be able to pass the bar for employment. Some employers force drug tests on their employees before starting work. Given that the states administer unemployment benefits, they have the right to force whatever conditions in order to receive benefits, including proof that you looked for work (Vandalay industries, they deal in latex). One of those conditions I suppose could be drug testing. So yeah, I would be indifferent (neither opposed nor unopposed) to drug testing in order to receive benefits for unemployment.
A tea party's PRESIDENTIAL candidate will never get elected.
Nobody was going to beat Obama in 2008. I still contend that the GOP fielding Romney in 2012 was equivalent to the Dems fielding Kerry in 2004, a poor choice for a candidate.
The key phrase.Quote: boymimboAnd no, I wouldn't give my brother (or anyone) sums of money if he was going to spend all of it on drugs and alcohol. I'd put him in rehab and pay for that.
Basically, you would still help your brother out and try to help him get his life in order. By contrast, Barack has shown absolutely no compassion for his brother. You say that "Barack probably doesn't owe George anything at all", yet this is the same guy who ran around the campaign trail expecting the country to believe that he has compassion for George Sixpack when he has zero compassion for George Obama!! SMH
Keep in mind, it was never my intention to harp on this subject, but I feel compelled to do so since you attacked Romney for the stupid dog incident. Look, Romney gave away about 30% of his total income in 2011, but if his dog is fair game (the damn dog wasn't even injured!), then Obama's brother is also fair game. And remember, the media actually confronted Romney over the dog incident, yet they never asked Obama at any point during the campaign about why he doesn't help his own brother. Freakin pathetic.
I will never understand people who want to criticize the treatment of a dog, but not the treatment of a brother. Be consistent...criticize both, or none at all.
I'm not sure how you know this. IIRC, you also stated that Republican moderates would win presidential elections, yet the last two elections proved otherwise.Quote: boymimboA tea party's PRESIDENTIAL candidate will never get elected.
Quote: boymimboNobody was going to beat Obama in 2008.
The Republicans had a tough one there, and the Democrats had a clear advantage. The Republicans also put forth a very weak moderate candidate who picked and even weaker conservative vice presidential candidate. They ran an older candidate against the next generation. They gave themselves no chance and the press was extra in love with one candidate, so there wasn't even a thorough review of their qualifications.
Quote: boymimboI still contend that the GOP fielding Romney in 2012 was equivalent to the Dems fielding Kerry in 2004, a poor choice for a candidate.
They had a chance here, but incumbents do have a huge advantage. Or a bunch of them...they arrive on Air Force One with the excitement of the Presidency. An uphill climb.
Against that, and again, with the press not pushing Obama to hard on his record, they ran a candidate that was not right for the time. A good man, but not a good match.
2012 was closer than 2008 but Romney, like McCain, just didn't drive people to the voting booth. Even with millions less voting for Obama in 2012, they didn't excite people enough to switch sides or to simply get out and vote.
Quote: boymimboA tea party's PRESIDENTIAL candidate will never get elected.
So basically the Republicans lose two elections and now we've heard that a moderate Republican or a Tea Party Republican can never win the Presidency. I don't think either one is true and I don't think they have to change their values to win a race. They have to do things to get support, of course, and chief among them is not to let the Democrats and the press do the teaching about what they stand for--they need to get the message out.
In spite of all the "party of the rich" stuff spewed by people like George Soros and Michael Moore, the Republican party is the party of a lot of people.
I suspect that now that we have had a minority President, who had a huge push from an adoring press, the next minority candidate (Hillary??) will not get as much of a free pass as the last one. President Obama benefited in a huge way from the fact that the media left him alone and worried about stuff like Romney's dog. The press will like Hillary, too, but I don't think they will oversell her as they did with President Obama.
Quote:the damn dog wasn't even injured!)
Not relevant.
There's a whole bunch of criminal behavior, where you get charged regardless. For instance, driving with a child in a crate on the roof of one's car probably get you charged with some sort of child endangerment, even if the child is unharmed.
How do we know what Obama did or didn't do for his brother? Maybe the guy won't agree to go to rehab. Sure sounds like it here.
Quote:Then, after shaking hands, I make a mistake. I invite George to lunch at my hotel. For the next two days, he lays siege to my mini-bar, invites a succession of girlfriends and ‘security advisers’ to wine and dine at my expense, and behaves like he is a famous, spoilt celebrity.
He also repeatedly demands ‘kitu kidogo’ — Swahili for something small, which, of course, means something large and financial — and is appalled when I refuse to hand out cash to his assorted girlfriends
Paradoxically, George also moans endlessly about the Obama name being a burden and a curse — yet, at the same time, unashamedly uses it to make as much money as possible to spend on drink and drugs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186782/Obamas-slumdog-brother-Meet-hopeless-drunk-Nairobi-shanty-town-U-S-Presidents-BROTHER.html
The press did ask George about it, and he said:
Quote: George Obama, in 2016: Obama's America'I think he has a family of his own, he's supposed to help his family'
'I'm part of his family, but I'm over-age so I can help myself. He’s got other issues to deal with. He’s taking care of the world, so he’s taking care of me.'
Obama has up to six other half-siblings as well.
Plenty of moderate Republicans get elected. GWB was elected. Reagan was elected. GHWB was elected. It's a matter of charisma and connecting with the electorate in order to sway the moderates. Romney didn't have that. He was a candidate of comprimise.
I totally agree that it's not relevant to the campaign. BUT, if you feel that it is in fact relevant, then so is Obama's brother. You can't have it both ways.Quote: rxwineNot relevant.
Good question. So why didn't the media press him for an answer? (Rhetorical question, because it's obvious that the media wanted him to win. Also, I also find it ironic that you quote an article which proves my point about the press going easy on BHO.)Quote: rxwineHow do we know what Obama did or didn't do for his brother?
Fair enough, and I do appreciate the concession there.Quote: boymimboYou might be correct to ask "did the press ask"?
The only one of those three that I would consider a classic moderate is Bush 41. And we all know what happened to him when he ran for re-election.Quote: boymimboPlenty of moderate Republicans get elected. GWB was elected. Reagan was elected. GHWB was elected. It's a matter of charisma and connecting with the electorate in order to sway the moderates. Romney didn't have that. He was a candidate of comprimise.
In any case (and I think I may have stated this earlier), I don't think a Republican will ever get elected again. They may have a chance in 2016 if the current Obama scandals go somewhere, but in the absence of that, a GOP candidate has too much to overcome in addition to their opponent (i.e. the media, Hollywood, etc).
Oh well...12 years of Bush I & II soon to be surpassed by 16 years of Clinton I & II. *headshake*
Quote: Beethoven9thI totally agree that it's not relevant to the campaign. BUT, if you feel that it is in fact relevant, then so is Obama's brother. You can't have it both ways.
The thing is Obama didn't DO anything to his brother. Romney DID something to his dog. It's active versus passive.
Active vs passive: Is you not giving a bum outside a casino money, versus deciding to kick him.
Duh...that was my whole point.Quote: rxwineThe thing is Obama didn't DO anything to his brother.
If the bum is one's own brother and he/she just walks away, then that says a lot about that person's character. I don't think such an uncaring person should be counted on to help anybody out.Quote: rxwineActive vs passive: Is you not giving a bum outside a casino money...
Quote: Beethoven9thI don't think such an uncaring person should be counted on to help anybody out.
Years and years ago, decades, I worked with
a guy who was raised in Kenya by missionary
parents till he was 16. He had fascinating stories
to tell. One of them was, any time a native
came into any money, a little or a lot, his
extended family came out of the woodwork for
their cut, their share. Cousins, 2nd cousins twice
removed, you name it. So it was almost tradition
for the guy who had the money to run for his
life or he wouldn't have any left. Obama ignoring
his relatives now that he's monied up is tradition,
you really can't hold it against him. If it got out
he was supporting one of them, all of a sudden
there would be a few hundred with their hands
out, wanting the same thing.
Quote: EvenBoblife or he wouldn't have any left. Obama ignoring
his relatives now that he's monied up is tradition,
you really can't hold it against him. If it got out
he was supporting one of them, all of a sudden
there would be a few hundred with their hands
out, wanting the same thing.
Yet people in this country expect handouts from him...
Quote: Beethoven9th
If the bum is one's own brother and he/she just walks away, then that says a lot about that person's character. I don't think such an uncaring person should be counted on to help anybody out.
Looks like he's taken care of his family just fine. Even before becoming President.
He has a family member he hasn't ever been close to, living like a bum and drunk, who only seems to want money, but not to clean himself up.
There's no story here.
Quote: rxwineLooks like he's taken care of his family just fine... [Um...not George]
He has a family member he hasn't ever been close to, living like a bum and drunk...
So if you had a brother who needed your help, you'd just ignore him and let him live on $1 per month without trying to help him get his life straight? Wow...
Also, if Obama won't even help his own brother, what makes you think he's gonna help you and the rest of the country? (Personally, I don't want his help, but that's beside the point because most of his supporters do)
Quote: Beethoven9thSo if you had a brother who needed your help, you'd just ignore him and let him live on $1 per month without trying to help him get his life straight? Wow...
Also, if Obama won't even help his own brother, what makes you think he's gonna help you and the rest of the country?
LOL. Are we pretending Obama hasn't been in office, or that I didn't vote for him twice already. What's he doing out there in Okahoma right now? Robbing people's devastated homes?
Pfft, Limbaugh would have flown this guy in and done a radio show or two with him if there was something worth taking down Obama with. That partisan hack couldn't resist such an opportunity.
...what any other president in history would have done.Quote: rxwineWhat's he doing out there in Okahoma right now?
No, but you're pretending that Romney's dog is an issue while ignoring Obama's brother. (BTW, Romney has an extensive record of helping people out, which you ignore in favor of the 'dog' story)Quote: rxwineLOL. Are we pretending Obama hasn't been in office, or that I didn't vote for him twice already.
Quote: rxwine
There's no story here.
Totally agree.
Blood may be thicker than water, but there’s a lot more to family than just some DNA.
Think about it; if you found out you had a 10-15 year old brother who was failing math, would you jump on the next plane to go tutor him?
C’mon. Even if he was a nice kid and not a junkie, do you owe anything to someone you’ve never known for half your life, just because of some shared DNA? And the last thing you ever do to a junkie is send them money. That’s not “assisting”, that’s “enabling”, and O would be skewered by that just as easily.
There’s a damn sight more things O should have to answer for that actually matter. In the grand scheme of things, this brother deal is less than a non-issue.
I give money to drug addicts and alcoholics in hopes that they clean up their act? Not even related to me. I'm sending money to Lindsay Lohan right now. (sarcasm) (heh, well, she is in rehab, even if court ordered)
That's what you want Obama to do apparently
Obama's brother?Quote: rxwineI'm not ignoring anything.
Um...I hate to break the news to you, but Romney did release his tax returns.Quote: rxwineSince he decided to be secretive about other tax records we don't know if it was for his resume
But let's not lose sight of the point, which is this: You can't have it both ways. If Obama's brother isn't a story, then neither is Romney's dog (which is my position). But if you do want to make hay out of Romney's dog, then you can't ignore George Obama.
I don't care what Obama does. I just want his supporters to be consistent.Quote: rxwineThat's what you want Obama to do apparently
Let's put it this way. Mistreatment of animals can get you a citation. Ignoring your drunken needy brother does not.
Shall I accuse you of being a bad person based on all the people you've never bothered to help out? Okay then. You can't win. Have you always stopped for someone in need while driving your car? Always. Always pulled over and it least checked and never passed them.
If you pass that test, I can come up with more and more. Neighbors. Friends you didn't feel like helping out that day; they needed something. It's just selfishness to ignore all those needs.
Quote: rxwineMistreatment of animals can get you a citation. Ignoring your drunken needy brother does not.
I'll repeat what I said awhile ago: If Obama
took care of even one of his needy relatives,
the flood gates would open and he'd have
hundreds to take care of overnight. He knows
this, its his heritage. He's not an idiot.
LOL...it's amazing the lengths you will go to attack candidates you dislike (i.e. Romney) while defending ones that you like (i.e. Obama).Quote: rxwineNo.
Now don't shift your position. You would absolutely be able to accuse me of such things if I completely ignored my own brother while I attacked someone else about his/her dog.Quote: rxwineShall I accuse you of being a bad person based on all the people you've never bothered to help out? Okay then. You can't win. Have you always stopped for someone in need while driving your car? Always. Always pulled over and it least checked and never passed them.
If you pass that test, I can come up with more and more. Neighbors. Friends you didn't feel like helping out that day; they needed something. It's just selfishness to ignore all those needs.
Look, my entire point is this: I personally don't give a crap about Romney's dog OR Obama's brother, but if you're going to bring up one, don't whine when someone else brings up the other.
Quote: Beethoven9thMy entire point is this: I personally don't give a crap about Romney's dog OR Obama's brother, but if you're going to bring up one, don't whine when someone else brings up the other.
Good for you. I'm fine with the comparison, given the circumstances I know about. Nothing you've said leads me to think otherwise, though I'll let you know if you say something convincing finally.
Good, finally some agreement!Quote: rxwineI'm fine with the comparison
George stated in the film that he didn't want help from his brother. Secondly, by all media accounts, all he's done with money (like the President, ha ha ha, gotta throw the conservatives a bone) is use it irresponsibly. And Finally, Barack has 5 or 6 half-siblings, all sired well after his father left Obama at age 2.
I would think that the responsibility to care for a family member depends on your relationship to them, and if you've had no relationship, there's no responsibility. My wife has a half-sister and wouldn't give the time of day to them. I have parents and had a feud with them that lasted for years and there was a point when I needed their help and they refused to help me. Families are complex things.
The dog is a simple story and should have had no impact on the election except to provide humor, and if you voted differently because of this incident, then you're a moron (in my opinion).
Just thought it should be put into perspective.
Up to this moment, everyone in this thread has completely missed my point, so I'll state it once more. Romney's dog AND Obama's brother are completely irrelevant stories, but if you're going to bring up one, don't whine when someone else brings up the other. In addition to this, the media showed their bias by beating the dog story to death and even confronting Romney directly. (This didn't happen with the George Obama story)Quote: boymimboI think Face and EvenBob (what?) make good points. To add to that:
George stated in the film that he didn't want help from his brother. Secondly, by all media accounts, all he's done with money (like the President, ha ha ha, gotta throw the conservatives a bone) is use it irresponsibly. And Finally, Barack has 5 or 6 half-siblings, all sired well after his father left Obama at age 2.
I would think that the responsibility to care for a family member depends on your relationship to them, and if you've had no relationship, there's no responsibility. My wife has a half-sister and wouldn't give the time of day to them. I have parents and had a feud with them that lasted for years and there was a point when I needed their help and they refused to help me. Families are complex things.
Ah, finally!!! And I completely agree. :)Quote: boymimboThe dog is a simple story and should have had no impact on the election except to provide humor, and if you voted differently because of this incident, then you're a moron (in my opinion).
Quote: 24BingoI almost hate to us this phrase, but you're drawing a false equivalence. If the two stories are ethically dissimilar, "you can't bring up one and balk at the other" is a nonsensical statement.
What does "ethically dissimilar" mean? The point is pretty simple. If someone wants to criticize Romney's ethics regarding the dog story, then they shouldn't whine when someone else criticizes Obama's ethics for not helping his brother.
Quote: s2dbakerHere's how important the Tax story, Benghazi and the AP story really are. We're talking about Seamus instead of IMPEEECHMINT!!!!!111!!!
Just thought it should be put into perspective.
Yes, our discussion got sidetracked on the "ethically dissimilar" stories (and I guess they are "ethically dissimilar", they still each show something negative about the person but were not given anywhere nearly equal play in the press). Romney never really got credit for his charitable contributions while Obama never got taken to task for his lack thereof, either...that is ethically similar, if that is now a requirement for comparing the coverage of issues.
The three scandals mentioned are still important and still don't rise to the level of impeachment. I know it is important to you, s2dbaker, that an impeachment be brought to help the Democrats in the 2014 election...it doesn't seem too important to you that the administration is wandering around clueless about what is going on in several areas; only that the Republicans mess up. No administration knows everything that happens; this one just professes that they know nothing about anything.
Not impeachable but perhaps very harmful to their cause...
Quote: RonC...they still each show something negative about the person but were not given anywhere nearly equal play in the press)
Thank you! Finally someone who understands my overall point.
Quote: Beethoven9thThank you! Finally someone who understands my overall point.
A point that would only make sense if they were comparable. If the greater wrong is given more airtime, that's just how it ought to be.
I've already said this 3 times before, but since you need me to say it a 4th time, here goes: If someone wants to criticize Romney's ethics regarding the dog story, then they shouldn't whine when someone else criticizes Obama's ethics for not helping his brother.Quote: 24BingoA point that would only make sense if they were comparable. If the greater wrong is given more airtime, that's just how it ought to be.
Quote: Beethoven9thI've already said this 3 times before, but since you need me to say it a 4th time, here goes: If someone wants to criticize Romney's ethics regarding the dog story, then they shouldn't whine when someone else criticizes Obama's ethics for not helping his brother.
"Tough Love" style treatment for drug & alcohol where you don't ENABLE people, is considered by some exactly the right thing. Not wrong at all. It most often has to be used by family members who tend to be enabling otherwise and support an addictive lifestyle. (I'm going to use the money you send to get clean, but head out to make a another buy)
So could be "ethically dissimilar".
