The Real Mitt Romney

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Sam, I could believe you - if only my eyes could actually see what you claim to be true.

Sadly, those who forget basic science routinely use observation as proof. You were taught in second grade science that observation alone is junk science. Also called lies. To know something means supporting facts with hard numbers. You never provide numbers. Your post classic junk science: subjective claims supported only by your feelings.

Sadly, you will not even answer a basic question necessary to have trust. Why did Romney say he was more liberal than Kennedy? You recommend him as a 'true conservative'? Well, Romney's strongest supporters are white men with the least education. People who foolishly know only from observation. Who only believe what they are first told.

Sadly, you demonstrate why my father so loved advertising. So much fun was to manipulate those with least education. Those who know only from observation. He loved to manipulate those who only know what first told.

Sadly also called Romney's strongest supporters. You never knew Romney said he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy. You never knew that Obamacare was based in Romneycare. You never knew Romneycare was first proposed in the Heritage Foundation. They forget to tell you that. Tea Party and Romney supporters only know what first told. They did not tell you those facts. So you remain in denial.

Sadly, your facts are inventions by people, like my father, who so loved to manipulate the most naive. White men with little education. Same technique also proved Saddam had WMDs. Same technique even blamed Saddam for 11 September. Same technique even proved that Pond's has Age Defying creams and Geritol for health. Scams are so easy among those who only believe what they are told. The naive only believe what they are first told. Sadly, even think observation is sufficient to have knowledge.

Why do you avoid the question? Why did Romney claim to be more liberal than Kennedy? Because he can lie. The most naive will only believe propaganda. He can lie because you forget or ignore facts. You refuse to answer the question for one simple reason. The powers that be have not yet told you what to think. You are why my father so loved advertising. Even your knowledge is only subjective observation. Fun is to manipulate the most naive (white men with least education) with outright lies. Sadly, even forget what was taught in second grade science. You know what the propaganda machine says to think. And think observation is sufficient to know something.

If informed, you could say why Romney once called himself more liberal than Kennedy. If informed, then you can say why Romneycare is so criticized by Romney. Sadly, you cannot. Sadly, you said, "Go ask Romney". An insult because you ignore Romney the flouder. Sadly you believe a politician will a history of flip-flopping. Sadly, you believe that means trust.

Sadly, you must even forget what was taught in second grade science. Sadly, that is why Romney's strongest supporters are white men with least education. People most easily manipulated by propaganda. You did not even know that Romney called himself more liberal than Kennedy. And that Obamacare is Romneycare. Sadly, you don't know that because propaganda machine did not tell you what to think.

Romney said he was more liberal that Kennedy. If honest, you can explain that. If dishonest or an uneducated white man (who even forgets what was taught in second grade science), then you must ignore or deny hard facts.

[Sheldonrs]

I wonder if it's true but it would not surprise me.

http://act.watchdog.net/petitions/18...ef=K-QMFvL1Z7I

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

Sadly, those who forget basic science routinely use observation as proof. You were taught in second grade science that observation alone is junk science. Also called lies. To know something means supporting facts with hard numbers. You never provide numbers. Your post classic junk science: subjective claims supported only by your feelings.

Your observations, are not just your feelings. They are factual, but not enough for a full statistical measure, since the sampling size is too small. But they are not subjective, and they are not feelings.

When you have two acquaintances on SSD, (and only know 2 people on SSD), and they're both young and healthy (and in one case, knows a trade that is in demand), it is something not to be ignored.


Drivel about something a politician said 10 years ago, is not relevant today. Not for Obama, and not for Romney.

You never knew that Obamacare was based in Romneycare.

Yes, I did know that, and Romneycare in MA has been a failure, according to Conservatives reporting on it.

You never knew Romneycare was first proposed in the Heritage Foundation. They forget to tell you that. Tea Party and Romney supporters only know what first told. They did not tell you those facts. So you remain in denial.

That was also mentioned on the Conservative talk shows. So, wrong again.

Sadly, your facts are inventions by people, like my father, who so loved to manipulate the most naive. White men with little education. Same technique also proved Saddam had WMDs. Same technique even blamed Saddam for 11 September. Same technique even proved that Pond's has Age Defying creams and Geritol for health. Scams are so easy among those who only believe what they are told. The naive only believe what they are first told. Sadly, even think observation is sufficient to have knowledge.

I've got about 4 years of college, and never believed Bush about Saddam causing 9/11. I remember Ponds and Geritol commercials. So what?

Why do you avoid the question? Why did Romney claim to be more liberal than Kennedy? Because he can lie. The most naive will only believe propaganda. He can lie because you forget or ignore facts. You refuse to answer the question for one simple reason. The powers that be have not yet told you what to think. You are why my father so loved advertising. Even your knowledge is only subjective observation. Fun is to manipulate the most naive (white men with least education) with outright lies. Sadly, even forget what was taught in second grade science. You know what the propaganda machine says to think. And think observation is sufficient to know something.

All politicians, lie - grow up. You're obsessed with this drivel of a comment from years ago.

All politicians change their minds, from time to time. Facts on the ground, change, the will of the people they represent, changes, the wording of laws, and the degree of enforcement, changes.

Any politician who never changes their mind on issues, wouldn't be worth a damn. Their VALUES are important, and shouldn't change much, but their position on issues BETTER change, as the situation changes.

Yes, I see you are obsessed with Romney's comment. And with the adverb "sadly", which is sad, in and of itself. Get help, or get over it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Your observations, are not just your feelings. They are factual, but not enough for a full statistical measure,

Total and insulting bullshit. A conclusion from observation was, at best, only a wild speculation. We were all taught about junk science in second grade. Spontaneous reproduction. Life is created by flooding a pond. Observation proves it. Only the most naive assume observation is fact.

Moldy bread breeds maggots. Also well proven by observation. Because junk science (also called lying to oneself) is knowledge from observation. This is second grade science. Must extremists be taught second grade science?

You demonstrate why propaganda and ideology are posted by you as facts. You do not even know the difference between junk science reasoning and what is required to have facts. Your fundamental problem has been identified.

How to identify anyone easily manipulated by rhetoric? He does not post numbers. Adak, you never post numbers. Your subjective reasoning is another symptom of junk science.

A classic lie: tax cuts create jobs. Even observation demonstrates that false. Why do you ignore observation when it contradicts your extremist political ideology? Observation is only valid when convenient?

Knowledge from observation is classic junk science. Observation says tax cuts destroys jobs. Why do you ignore observations when it contradicts your extremist political views? Anyone can speculate by observing your posts. And always come to the same conclusion. Extremism justified by myths is alive and well.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

Total and insulting bullshit. A conclusion from observation was, at best, only a wild speculation. We were all taught about junk science in second grade. Spontaneous reproduction. Life is created by flooding a pond. Observation proves it. Only the most naive assume observation is fact.

When you watch a car drive by - did the car REALLY drive by? Yes. It is your observation, and it is also a FACT.

When you watch the traffic signal light turn red - did the light REALLY change? Yes. It is your observation, and it is also a FACT.

And if you had the common sense that God gave to geese, you'd acknowledge at least THAT much.

Moldy bread breeds maggots. Also well proven by observation.

Lordy you're pathetic! Flies drop eggs over sites they believe are favorable for their eggs to hatch and grow into maggots. The bread doesn't breed, anything. It is merely the site the eggs will mature and hatch in.

Must extremists be taught second grade science?

You must, for sure.

You demonstrate why propaganda and ideology are posted by you as facts. You do not even know the difference between junk science reasoning and what is required to have facts. Your fundamental problem has been identified.

You can't id your butt with both hands in a well-lit room, who you kidding?

How to identify anyone easily manipulated by rhetoric? He does not post numbers. Adak, you never post numbers. Your subjective reasoning is another symptom of junk science.

Next, I suppose our national debt will be "junk science" and my "subjective reasoning"?

A classic lie: tax cuts create jobs. Even observation demonstrates that false. Why do you ignore observation when it contradicts your extremist political ideology? Observation is only valid when convenient?

I was around when Kennedy cut the taxes, and I was around when Reagan cut the taxes, and in both cases, the personal wealth increased, and spending by businesses (especially small businesses) and consumers increased, and the economy benefited a great deal from it.

Wrong again, Mr. Junk Science man!

Knowledge from observation is classic junk science. Observation says tax cuts destroys jobs. Why do you ignore observations when it contradicts your extremist political views? Anyone can speculate by observing your posts. And always come to the same conclusion. Extremism justified by myths is alive and well.

So I own a small restaurant, and now, because income taxes are cut, people are going to eat at home more often? Or I have a gas station, so now people with more money in their pockets, will drive less?

You really have shown no common sense at all in your arguments.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

You really have shown no common sense at all in your arguments.

Insulting people by even denying second grade science demonstrates Tea Party rhetoric. When a car passes, moving air is felt. It leaves a smell. It makes noise. It measures and records the movement. Does many things that confirm the observation and that are quantified. A definition of knowledge that escapes you.

But you only see a car. Ignore everything else. And are then an expert. Subjective reasoning based only in observation to deny the car really moved. Because the party told you so? Stop being insultingly dumb.

If intelligent or only informed, then answer the question. Why does the man you praise because he is conservative, instead, say he is more liberal than Ted Kennedy? You could answer that question only if you acknowledge reality. Reality is too hard to admit. If honest, then you must be critical of Romney for flip-flopping. Wacko extremists fear honesty. And that is the point. You ignore facts you do not like - as any good extremist educated by Fox News.

Stop posting insults and nonsense to avoid the question. Why did Romney say he is more liberal than Ted Kennedy? Little hint. The Economist said why. Their answer undermines your reality. So you avoid the answer? Why did Romney say he was more liberal than Kennedy? Any honest Romney supporter already knew that answer. Is reality too diffilcult to swallow? Is second grade science also too difficult? No wonder you resort to insults to avoid that question. Get out of cloud-cuckoo-land. Be an adult. Answer the question.

[tw]

If not a wacko extremist, then how to obtain Party support? Even Rush Limbaugh labeled Romney a flaming liberal. Only a spectaculor politician can reframe a moderate into an extremist conservative. This above discussion demonstrates that Romney did just that. He completely reversed himself on most issues (ie woman's rights, Romneycare, military spending, immigration). And got extremists to believe him.

Are extremists that gullible? What did Romney do to get extremists (ie Adak) to believe Romney was a conservative? What did he do to get Adak ignore the Romney statement that he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy? Either that requires amazing political skills. Or extremists are that easily manipulated by hearsay, myth, and propaganda. Both may apply.

[Stormieweather]

The real Mitt Romney?

Heh.

If you just lost the Presidential election, and had to scramble to write a concession speech because you were so cocksure that you’d win that you didn’t bother to write one in advance, you might have a lot on your mind. Maybe you’d take a minute to thank your tireless campaign workers. Maybe you’d say, “What the heck, let’s eat that Victory Cake; it’ll just go to waste if we don’t!”

Maybe you’d call Karl Rove at FOX News and bawl him out for not winning the election for you. Perhaps you’d call your webmaster and tell him or her to take down your pre-prepared “President-Elect Romney” website, which you’d been proudly showing off to the world even before Election Day. Maybe you’d console your wife, telling her that moving into the White House would only have been downgrading, and that public housing was really not good enough for you, anyway. Maybe, after calling the President to congratulate him on his win through gritted teeth, you’d take a minute to phone your sons and break the bad news to them personally. Maybe you’d loosen your tie, announce that those grapes were probably sour anyway, and go take a nap.

There are any number of things a losing candidate can do to wind down a long and exhausting campaign, and Mitt Romney probably did some of the things above.

Mitt Romney also made sure to cancel all Romney campaign staff business credit cards–in the middle of the night–which meant that some staffers, newly unemployed and straggling home after an emotionally devastating loss, discovered that their taxicab drivers were really pissed off because their Romney campaign credit cards were being declined.

Addictinginfo

Forbes

Esquire