The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 25 of 30 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 500 of 587
  1. #481
    Join Date
    Oct. 21, 1999
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    12,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caffeinated View Post
    I think another thing we need to really think about is WHY we are the biggest target. Every time we start this particular conversation someone spins it as "apologizing" for America, but we have to really look objectively at what we've done in the world, and develop a different track so that history doesn't repeat itself. When have our interventions bitten us in the ass? When have they been welcomed and successful? Unfortunately when leadership changes every 4-8 years and has different goals and ideas, our foreign policy can't be predictable and consistent over decades, which makes this hard. But we can't just beef up our military without addressing what the threats are, WHY they are threats, and how we adjust our position and policy to (to put it bluntly) make fewer people hate us.
    I just wanted to note that this post is dead on, and I wanted my name attached to my approval, not just a thumbs up.

    I wasn't clear enough in my last post. What I was trying to say is that we can't leave military spending where it is, and not try to reduce it. It cannot be a sacred cow. It must be on the line. There's fat to be cut, lots of it, and it should be cut.

    Sometimes, business methods can work. I'm not certainly expert enough to try and determine whether or not they would work in the military's case. I can point you to an example in business of where trimming the fat worked in my area and that is Xerox. Jobs were lost, people were unhappy, but the company is still there, healthy and providing jobs still for lots of people. In contrast, I might add, to another Rochester area company that didn't have a good business plan and it in deep trouble because of it. That company is Kodak.

    Maybe that's the key. You have to have a good plan. You have to be prepared to make some sacrifices in order to reach your goal, but, first, you have to know what that goal is. Both sides, as far as I'm concerned, have not articulated their plan well enough.
    Originally Posted by Alagirl
    We just love to shame poor people...when in reality, we are all just peasants.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  2. #482
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2005
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    2,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Natalie View Post
    Well...it was an offensive thing to say, and sorry, not true--sure there are plenty of uninformed voters out there, but 47% of the country assumes that basically everyone that votes Democrat has no idea what the party actually stands for. Anyone who truly believes that is delusional. I don't think Romney actually believes that--he was being hyperbolic in trying to make a point, which was that he wasn't going to win in a landslide no matter what. A democratic candidate won't either.

    And there wasn't a "peep" on the "other side of the coin" because nothing on the left was said implying that a large chunk of the electorate was un-winnable. If it had been, I would expect it to be talked about, and I would think it was just as offensive and stupid as I thought Romney's remark was. So...I don't get the point you're trying to make...
    Perhaps something like ".....bitter people clinging to their guns and religion" or something along those lines?

    There are a lot of very stupid things said on both sides.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #483
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2001
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie View Post
    Perhaps something like ".....bitter people clinging to their guns and religion" or something along those lines?

    There are a lot of very stupid things said on both sides.
    I agree--that was a stupid and offensive thing to say, and the media did jump on it. But it wasn't said during this election cycle (meaning, it was 4 year old news), which is why I still don't understand the point trying to be made, that the media didn't cover comments equivalent to the "47%" during the campaign season...

    Edited to add--here is Obama's entire quote:
    But the truth is, is that our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's no evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot -- like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they've gone through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate, and they have not. It's not surprising, then, that they get bitter, and they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. At least in some communities, anyway.
    So yes, it was a stupid and offensive thing to say. However, when you read the entire thing, you can see that he isn't writing these people off as not worth his time, whereas Romney quite literally was. Case in point, his words:
    There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to 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…[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
    I'm not trying to argue--I'm just pointing out that, while both of them made some, er, errors in judgement in wording, the real magnitude of their "offense" comes from the actual overall point they were making...


    4 members found this post helpful.

  4. #484
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie View Post
    Perhaps something like ".....bitter people clinging to their guns and religion" or something along those lines?

    There are a lot of very stupid things said on both sides.
    There was some truth in that.

    There was some truth in the 47% will vote for Obama, but not for the reasons that Romney gave. It was his justification that hurt him, not the 47% comment.

    Just to refresh your memory...the bolded part, that was the problem.

    "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to 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…[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    4 members found this post helpful.

  5. #485
    Join Date
    Feb. 16, 2010
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    There was some truth in that.

    There was some truth in the 47% will vote for Obama, but not for the reasons that Romney gave. It was his justification that hurt him, not the 47% comment.
    His comment was about strategy. He was saying that 47% of people are going to vote for Obama and we shouldn't waste campaign resources on trying to convince them to vote for us. We need to focus on the other 53% we have a chance of reaching.

    He never meant that if elected he would completely write off 47% of people. Fiscal conservatives believe that our policies lift everyone up creating more prosperity for 100% of the country.

    But I personally think it is a mistake to ignore campaigning to the 47% of the country Romney was talking about. We just need to do do a better job of explaining how our policies will achieve more prosperity for everyone. It's a marketing problem not an ideas problem.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  6. #486
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2001
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by showhorsegallery View Post
    His comment was about strategy. He was saying that 47% of people are going to vote for Obama and we shouldn't waste campaign resources on trying to convince them to vote for us. We need to focus on the other 53% we have a chance of reaching.

    He never meant that if elected he would completely write off 47% of people. Fiscal conservatives believe that our policies lift everyone up creating more prosperity for 100% of the country.

    But I personally think it is a mistake to ignore campaigning to the 47% of the country Romney was talking about. We just need to do do a better job of explaining how our policies will achieve more prosperity for everyone. It's a marketing problem not an ideas problem.
    In terms of economy, sure--I disagree with Republican ideas about the economy, but I fully respect their (and your ) belief in their validity.

    You have to realize though, the GOP does have an "ideas" problem--arguably not with the economy, but on social issues, immigration, health care...issues that a large part of the electorate just doesn't stand with them on. This is why those in the party now calling for a move further to the right have me flabbergasted....I do not honestly understand how they can possibly believe that they lost election because they weren't conservative enough.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  7. #487
    Join Date
    Feb. 16, 2010
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Natalie View Post
    In terms of economy, sure--I disagree with Republican ideas about the economy, but I fully respect their (and your ) belief in their validity.

    You have to realize though, the GOP does have an "ideas" problem--arguably not with the economy, but on social issues, immigration, health care...issues that a large part of the electorate just doesn't stand with them on. This is why those in the party now calling for a move further to the right have me flabbergasted....I do not honestly understand how they can possibly believe that they lost election because they weren't conservative enough.
    I should have been more clear. I meant ideas issues in the context of fiscal conservatism. I'm a registered Libertarian, not a Republican. I agree with you that the GOP needs to do something to fix their social platform.

    I actually think they aren't conservative enough fiscally. Obama and Bush2 weren't that different when it came to trying to stimulate the economy. It was just a difference in scale. It didn't work either time. Because taking money out of the economy in the form of taxes or inflating the money supply (which devalues current dollars) just to put it back in doesn't do anything to grow it.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  8. #488
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by showhorsegallery View Post
    His comment was about strategy. He was saying that 47% of people are going to vote for Obama and we shouldn't waste campaign resources on trying to convince them to vote for us. We need to focus on the other 53% we have a chance of reaching.

    He never meant that if elected he would completely write off 47% of people. Fiscal conservatives believe that our policies lift everyone up creating more prosperity for 100% of the country.

    But I personally think it is a mistake to ignore campaigning to the 47% of the country Romney was talking about. We just need to do do a better job of explaining how our policies will achieve more prosperity for everyone. It's a marketing problem not an ideas problem.
    I think you've missed the point. Bolded part was what shot him in the foot.

    "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to 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…[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

    Not only was it offensive, but he got it wrong. Many who don't pay income tax are the elderly on social security and deployed military. Whoops.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    7 members found this post helpful.

  9. #489
    Join Date
    Jun. 19, 2001
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    2,080

    Default

    showhorsegallery--Ah gotcha.

    Many others would agree with you re: the similarities between Obama and Bush2 on the economy. I've seen quite a few articles pointing out that Obama is essentially a moderate Republican in the mold of someone like Nixon or Eisenhower. And while I don't know that I fully agree, I certainly see their point. Which is just one of the many reasons why all of the screams about "Communism!!" are especially laughable.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  10. #490
    Join Date
    Feb. 16, 2010
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    I think you've missed the point. Bolded part was what shot him in the foot.

    "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to 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…[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
    Foot. Meet Mouth. He did a poor job of wording that. 47& of the country is a net tax consumer. A lot of these people do feel entitled. That's true. Is it all of the 47%? No. But when he says that his job is not to worry about them I truly believe he meant worry in the sense of campaigning to them. Some people will never take personal responsibility for their own lives. This is also true. What is the percentage? I have no idea and no idea how you would measure that.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  11. #491
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2005
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    2,846

    Default

    And, in the meantime, conservatism can't be all bad, as one state after another appear to be electing Republican governors.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  12. #492
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    5,676

    Default

    More Republican voices heard. I don't know how I was able to find this stuff since the media is left-wing, yet I was able to read and/or listen to all of these:

    Donald Trump calling the election a “total sham and a travesty. We can’t let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty,” he wrote. “Let’s fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.”

    He deleted tweets he wrote that called for “revolution.”

    Ted Nugent: “Pimps whores & welfare brats & their soulless supporters hav (sic) a president to destroy America.”

    Radio host Bryan Fischer: “Today was Pearl Harbor. Tomorrow we begin planning for Normandy.”

    Robert Stacy McCain in The American Spectator called Nov. 6 another day “that will live in infamy. At the moment, I am convinced America is doomed beyond all hope of redemption, and any talk of the future fills me with dread and horror.”

    Dick Morris (former Democrat, now a Republican): “We must stop Obama’s socialist agenda. That’s our job for the next four years."

    Ben Stein in The American Spectator: Obama’s re-election “seems like a terrible fate."


    6 members found this post helpful.

  13. #493
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    3,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    I think you've missed the point. Bolded part was what shot him in the foot.

    "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to 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…[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

    Not only was it offensive, but he got it wrong. Many who don't pay income tax are the elderly on social security and deployed military. Whoops.
    Mr Stolen works for our city, I don't and we pay loads of taxes. He is lumped into the 47% based on Romney's statement. He also takes personal responsibility and care for his life and our family's -along with me. He is dependent on government for his work, but that does not make him a victim. Nor is my 85 year old mother living on social security a "victim".

    So is this statement by Romney "name calling" ? my husband was offended since he is one of many first responders and this city gets him during a crisis and I am left alone with our children. How are many in the 47% suppose to feel about a leader who called them "entitled, and do not take responsibility for their lives".

    It is offensive and it is spoken by a man who is completely alienated from hard working Americans who actually are responsible and not entitled but Romeny wouldn't know what a hard working, responsible American is and this statement proves that.


    11 members found this post helpful.

  14. #494
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catsdorule-sigh View Post
    Because the business of the military-industrial complex is good business-for some. Government run by good business principles, (Which would be in the eye of who it benefits most) would only make things worse, because they would be beholden to the bottom line of those who profit insanely from the coffers that you and I provide via taxes and payment on loans to keep the budget for war bloated. War is profitable and those who profit from it don't care about "the people." Government as business is a racket, laws passed to insure that money keeps flowing to those who need it least. Catherine Austin Fitts had a real example in the prison system. Gosh, if you legalized Mary Jane, there would go all those jailed for minimal possession and the resultant lack of jail cells to pay for. Incarceration has become outsourced, privatized, big business- as just one example- and we pay for it. I'm not saying yay or nay on legalizing MJ, it's just an example of how "government on the business plan" works. Privatizing what used to be accomplished via the government was just a scheme sold to increase things business could profit from. So where is the middle ground? Maybe we were there in the 50's-60's, who knows. But we're way, way too much in the hands of "business" and bankers right now.

    The media? Look into the ownership and what else those corporations have invested in, and you will realize that they'll feed you only so much but no real truth or investigation will ever take place because if the media really did that, it would not be good for the overall corporate bottom line. There never has been a real, liberal media. That's propaganda fed from the far right media organization, that causes the alleged "liberal" side to move ever further right, until there really is no more liberal- but the masses never seem to realize how that works.
    Privatization is what gives us the highways we have and so much else.
    You can't believe those the government keeps up look like, compared with those they hire subs to repave.
    Government run is what gives us the bankrupt Post Office, that is hobbled by all those government regulations that keeps it from being competitive and Medicare and veterans and CHIPS and all that everyone is complaining about.

    Remember when, several decades ago, England tried to nationalize so much and how that worked?

    While there are some basic business that the government needs to manage, the less the better for all in free countries.

    You find the other extreme in communist countries, where the government runs all and you can see where that took them.

    If you don't like the way the government subcontracts so much, if the regulations are not up to what you like, working to make them suit you would be one other way to go about having everything run smoothly, without the inefficiencies that government run brings.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #495
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Privatization is what gives us the highways we have and so much else.
    You can't believe those the government keeps up look like, compared with those they hire subs to repave.
    Government run is what gives us the bankrupt Post Office, that is hobbled by all those government regulations that keeps it from being competitive and Medicare and veterans and CHIPS and all that everyone is complaining about.
    Privatization would not be subcontracting. It would be selling the roads to a private entity for ownership and upkeep. Just like privatization of schools or prisons. The government no longer owns it.

    As for the post office, it would be doing just fine if Congress hadn't decided to put an absurd pension/health care funding requirement in place. And its establishment is in the Constitution for Pete's sake.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    3 members found this post helpful.

  16. #496
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2004
    Location
    Medford Oregon
    Posts
    914

    Default

    One thing that bit Republicans in the butt is the tearing down of each candidate during the primaries. A lot of money got spent on painting Romney in a certain light that they had to try to repaint him in a more positive light once he was chosen as the Republican presidential candidate.

    If you want the public to love a candidate don't point out all his flaws before he's the chosen one, people don't forget that quickly.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  17. #497
    Join Date
    Dec. 29, 1999
    Location
    Harrisburg, PA USA
    Posts
    5,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie View Post
    And, in the meantime, conservatism can't be all bad, as one state after another appear to be electing Republican governors.
    Won't stand for these "when did you stop beating your wife?" type of statements.

    No Democrat is saying "conservatism is bad."

    Conservatism is supported by millions of people of all parties. As has been repeatedly pointed out, there were issues in this election of basic fundamental ignorance of 7th-grade biology and utter callousness for at the very least 50% of the population. Choices had to be made. To imply like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that the ONLY reason people voted for Obama is "conservatism is bad" is an enormous falsehood and what's more, they (and you) know it, yet you continue to try to pass it off.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  18. #498
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    16,791

    Default

    So, Romney wasn't the perfect candidate. But, how do you explain all the Senate seats. There's something profoundly wrong with the way the GOP appeals to (or doesn't appeal to) voters. They need to fix it.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    3 members found this post helpful.

  19. #499
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Privatization would not be subcontracting. It would be selling the roads to a private entity for ownership and upkeep. Just like privatization of schools or prisons. The government no longer owns it.

    As for the post office, it would be doing just fine if Congress hadn't decided to put an absurd pension/health care funding requirement in place. And its establishment is in the Constitution for Pete's sake.

    Those were examples and yes, we have around here whole toll highways that private companies build and maintain and you pay a toll to use.

    The Post Office is bankrupt because of private companies as UPS and FedEx, that can do the same job and much better and at a cheaper cost.
    That is what private enterprise does best, someone always finds a better, more efficient way to do what needs to be done and thrives.
    Unlike government, that has to be dragged to change anything.

    If we want to keep the Post Office, fund it properly and let it be competitive in today's market.

    Highway crews would still be going around with a holey frying pan adding tar to potholes if it was left up to them. (That is a joke around here.)


    2 members found this post helpful.

  20. #500
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    40,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    So, Romney wasn't the perfect candidate. But, how do you explain all the Senate seats. There's something profoundly wrong with the way the GOP appeals to (or doesn't appeal to) voters. They need to fix it.
    Well, maybe some don't vote for someone, but against someone?

    I think one problem with who votes for whom is the parties themselves.

    If you align yourself with one and vote for those in that party, well, you will be voting for some you would not really want to vote, but it is your party, so you do.

    I know many from both parties that vote a "straight ticket".



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 83
    Last Post: Nov. 7, 2012, 04:41 PM
  2. Poll; Does Obama deserve re-election?
    By riderboy in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 347
    Last Post: Nov. 27, 2011, 09:02 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sep. 23, 2011, 03:36 PM
  4. Yet another election, this time for FEI president.
    By His Greyness in forum Off Course
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Nov. 5, 2010, 12:07 PM
  5. Thank goodness, Election Day is near!
    By Alagirl in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Oct. 31, 2010, 05:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness