Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has signaled a preference in the U.S. presidential campaign by comparing Mitt Romney to his own challenger.
Chavez, who is up for re-election a month before U.S. President Barack Obama, has in recent weeks expressed a clear preference for the man currently in the White House.
In a campaign speech Saturday night, Chavez equated the agenda of his challenger, Henrique Capriles, with that of Romney, saying both men represent the callously selfish capitalist elite.
...
"In the end, it's the same project," Chavez said, referring to Obama as "a good guy."
I'm sure that many of you who are parents here had the same reaction that I did when I heard this news. You know, my daughters go to the movies. What if Malia and Sasha had been at the theater, as so many of our kids do every day?
Yeah, I know when my daughter goes to the movie, I'm always worried if her Secret Service detail's 10mm handguns will be sufficient to penetrate the body armor of any possible armed assailants. Maybe they should also have some MP5s handy?
It’s as if President Obama climbed into a tank, put on his helmet, talked about how his foray into Cambodia was seared in his memory, looked at his watch, misspelled “potato” and pardoned Richard Nixon all in the same day.
Don't know why anybody really bothers anyway. Is there really anybody who doesn't simply hate the other side and refuse to vote for a candidate for Party X?
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:26 am
by TPRJones
The thing is, what he meant to say was reasonable. Add in the context from the rest of that part of his speech, and what he meant to say was "You didn't build it (alone). Someone else (helped you make) that happen." This could refer to anything from getting a small business loan to simply having roads and bridges and schools in place to help you move your goods and hire trained employees. Not an unreasonable statement when taken in context, IMO (although I do disagree with some of the fundamental philosophy behind the scenes here, but that's not for this post).
Now, is the difference just a matter of poorly chosen words, or was it more Freudian than that? There I don't know, but I suspect his personal feelings are more in line with exactly what he ended up saying and is accused of meaning. But it's not as cut-and-dried as his detractors would have you think.
On the whole the Republicans are acting a bit like children who tricked someone into saying something stupid and are now running around chanting it back at them gleefully. While the Democrats sulk and start to tear up, getting ready to throw a total hissy-fit tantrum.
Edited By TPRJones on 1343655184
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:07 am
by GORDON
Yes, the context has always been there and is obvious... he meant to say "all the infrastructure upon which you built your business... you didn't build that..." but even that isn't entirely accurate, is it. Where does the money come from to pay for that infrastructure? Taxes. Businesses supply just about ALL tax money... even personal income tax comes from income probably earned at some business.
The problem Obama is facing with that quote is that it is so fucking unamerican.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:49 am
by thibodeaux
Plus, the implicit conclusion behind this notion that "you didn't build that" is "therefore, you can't say you earned anything, and therefore can't object to us taking as much of it as we like."
The idea is that since you use those roads, comrade, you can't complain about taxes.
Also, since there are lots of smart and/or hard-working people who aren't as well off as you, well, clearly you don't deserve to be better off than them.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:09 pm
by TPRJones
Agreed. That is what I was referring to by what he seemed to mean versus what he actually said. And beyond that what he really thinks.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:29 pm
by GORDON
Obama/Democrats: military members don't get extra time to vote in Ohio.
If the law they were trying to block was one that was restricting a longer time frame for regular voters but leaving military voters the same longer time, then the Obama groups statements would make sense. But it's not. The law in question only serves to lengthen military voters time. So saying blocking it is an action that is intended to help everyone is a lie. All it is intended to do is limit time for military votes to come in.
What I'm saying is this time Obama's people are full of shit. They've gotten caught playing politics with the early military voting rules. Suck it up and take it like a man, Mr. President.
They have to know that ad is going to backfire on them.
Heck, maybe the SuperPAC behind it is really in favor of Romney, and just did it to make Obama look bad.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:26 pm
by GORDON
SO, I am learning new things about SuperPACs today...
I guess it is illegal for the actual Obama campaign to coordinate ads and shit with the SuperPAC?
So I guess there is an Obama campaign ad and a SuperPAC ad that has Obama in the same clothes. Also, the same actor has been spotted in ads between the 2 entities.
Like I said, they don't really give much of a shit about obeying the law in that Executive Branch.
Speaking of which, can foreign donors still donate money on Obama's website?
edit - Correction: the original article I read was poorly phrased... here's a clarified one. The "Romney killed my wife" guy was in 2 different ads, wearing the same clothes.
Asked about the Priorities spot on MSNBC Wednesday morning, Robert Gibbs said he doesn’t “know the specifics” while Stephanie Cutter said on CNN: “I don’t know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance.”
And Jen Psaki told reporters on Air Force One that “we don't' have any knowledge of the story of the family,” according to Yahoo! News.
But Cutter hosted an Obama campaign conference call in May in which Soptic told reporters the very story featured in the Priorities spot.
Both the campaign and the Priorities USA Action said there was no coordination about Soptic’s appearances. In the campaign’s ad, Soptic speaks only about the plant. In the Priorities spot, he tells the personal story he relayed during the Obama campaign conference call.
“We have no idea when Priorities shot their spot,” an Obama campaign official said. “We’re not allowed to coordinate with them – but we can tell you it wasn’t when we shot ours.”
Edited By GORDON on 1344465177
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:46 pm
by Malcolm
I still think he'll manage to get reelected.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:58 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:I still think he'll manage to get reelected.
My gut tells me that if Romney wins by less than 1%, that is within the margin of cheating and Obama will win.
