In his bitter words.
He was speaking at a fundraiser, telling the donors what he would do with the money. Basically, he said he would spend it on the undecided, not on the drones that will vote for Obama no matter what.
Another thing I like is that he spoke about it today, no apology. He was correct, and he stuck by it. Obama scrambles around like a cat in a marble hallway when he says something (you didn't build that!) that he really didn't want to slip out.
"Resist, we much. Weï»¿ must, and we much. About that, be committed."
I don't hear any "bitter" in his words. He is telling the truth, but the way the left has reacted, it seems they think Romney was stating his utter disdain for the people who don't pay taxes and are used to government handouts. Hogwash!!! He is running a campaign of smaller government and what he is stating is that he is going to have an extremely difficult time reaching the people who don't pay taxes and rely on government handouts and will vote for Obama no matter what.
He was simply being honest by stating which segment of the voting public he needed to reach, if he has a chance of winning this election. But it shows the desperation of the left in trying to spin this in a negative way.
Oh, his tone is bitter all right, the tone of someone clueless and who knows he's struggling. The truth is we are all dependent on one another - try me - and we are the government, unless we choose to abdicate our role in democracy.
"Hmm... must be two recordings out there. I haven't heard the one that the liberals are hearing."Me either, it's simply the truth, what's the big deal? Meanwhile 16 trillion in debt, QE3 has been implemented, the slide continues and the fiddler fiddles.
Hmmm... 1/3 of the debt is money owed ourselves. Most of it came from Republican presidents, and the amount rung up since 2009 is because of the mess created by Republican leadership. And the right has a candidate who refuses to put forth detailed plans, refuses to release his taxes, tells Hispanic people he has a plan for them and to trust him. Now he says he won't even try in the Middle East because it's too hard to solve.
"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 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," Romney said.
Again, where is the proof that the 47% Romney claims are dependent on the government vote democrat? I suppose it makes Romney feel better to believe that garbage?
You're forgetting a few things... while his debt is the highest single total, still more than half came from Republican presidents. Now that will change in a second term, and he will have the most... but 90% of the debt *before* Obama came from Republican presidents. And there is no doubt that most of his debt now is because of the issues created during a Republican presidency.
The housing issue was a bipartisan failure. As a former insurance person, working for a company back in the 1980s, we feared the intrusion of banks into insurance, something they lobbied for, and both parties finally gave it to them.
However... companies actively solicited those subprime loans. They were seen as big time revenue. The fact is for decades we've run deficits to our detriment. The problem is you don't fix it in down times, you fix it in good times. Instead, Bush ran up huge deficits with an unneeded tax cut and a needless war. That really screwed things up, when taken with the private sector collapse, because it impaired ability to act.
Obama actually has done much in his time in office. You can't fault a person who assumes office when the economy is shedding 3/4 of a million jobs a month, but within six months, the jobs issue turned around. The stimulus wasn't big enough (guess why) but it did serve a good purpose. He does expend effort in the Middle East, and he is less likely to be sucked into doing Netanyahu's dirty work and get us mired in an unwinnable war that might well end up as WWIII. Mitt is not a leader. Obama is. His foreign polcy record is quite good. If Republicans wish to be taken seriously, they need to get back to the outlook of GHWB, Alan Simpson, etc, and get away from the extremists who now control things.
Side question, what's the capital of Israel? Obama and the Dems don't know, do you?
Curious, are you well versed on the history of that area? If you were, you will understand that is a very loaded question.
Obama was trending softly, as the president of a member of the UN Security Council should. I am very sure that Obama & his advisors are very well versed in the politics of the situation.
"Many do not recognize it as a city that is properly Israel's. Many UN member states formally adhere to the United Nations proposal that Jerusalem should have an international status.
The chief dispute revolves around Israel's control of East Jerusalem, while broader agreement exists regarding the Israeli presence in West Jerusalem. De jure, the majority of UN member states and most international organisations do not recognise Israel's control of East Jerusalem which occurred after the 1967 Six Day War, nor its 1980 Jerusalem Law proclamation, which declared a "complete and united" Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. As a result, foreign embassies are generally located in Tel Aviv and its suburbs.
Jerusalem is a contentious issue in final status peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, which claims Jerusalem as Al Quds, the capital of a future Palestinian state. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has stated that "Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people and will remain under Israeli sovereignty for eternity."
If the US formally recognized the legal validity of the 1980 law and hence recognized the annexation of East Jerusalem , why is your embassy still in Tel Aviv?
gal_callie wrote:Again, where is the proof that the 47% Romney claims are dependent on the government vote democrat? I suppose it makes Romney feel better to believe that garbage?
What's your point? Are you trying to say that those people are more likely to vote for Romney?