Mitt Romney's photo op with a Vietnam veteran.
 

I was recently linked this video. Decided to share.

http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-...ess-ensues?g=2

I don't really have much to say other than I liked the video and I liked the crusty old man.

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showpo...3&postcount=77

Oh. My bad. You posted it a day earlier then me. XD

Yeah, I didn't say anything though. XD

LOL I bet Mittens thought he was safe talking to a Vet. *evil laugh*

I find it discerning that when confronted with his ideals, his immediate action is to stumble upon words and get the hell out of Dodge. Seriously, how is he even a possibility for president? How the hell do people think this guy can actually do anything for the country?

I actually kind of like Romney
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...36/370/361.jpg


Reason being he wasn't - and I'm sure isn't - this ultra right wing candidate that wants to end all medicare and fuck the poor and give tax cuts to the rich. He was just forced to become a caricature against his own will, if he wanted to have a chance at becoming a presidential candidate. He had to compete with idiots like Bachmann, Santorum, and Paul, and now he has to make sure Ryan doesn't outshine him, because in contemporary conservative politics it's not sensibility that makes someone great, but stubbornness and hatred. He reminds me of Pierre Delacroix in Bamboozled; not because there's a direct parallel, but because I feel they traveled the same line of flight in their own plateaus.
I like when he stumbles and 'flip flops', but not due to how most people who oppose him derive pleasure from his gaffes. Every time he stumbles, I remember how relatively moderate he was. People accuse him of being a flip flopper, but what I see is instead an old man trying to juggle his political stance with the need for respect in a changing political party. His type of Republicanism is old news, and I want to believe that makes him sad every day, and he has a hard time swallowing his own bullshit, because the saddest part is that in this case what is old and dying is the pragmatic approach, the Nixonian 'silent majority', in favor of the paradoxical abomination that is young people becoming proud of being reactionary and elitist.

Fuck you, he's totally anti-gay and anti-woman, by his OWN adamant admission.


Wait a sec, did I just get Poe'd?

No. I'm dead serious. And if you don't get where I'm coming from then you don't understand politics further from your own.

I think I get where Alan is coming from.

I'm just not sure if I can believe all of it.

I'd like to think that Romney is the way he is because his party is just far too severe for him but he's got all these other mad dogs who REALLY ARE crazy.

Then again, I've always kind of felt that what we're seeing is also not just a bunch of mad dogs encroaching on an amiable Romney.

Sometimes I think it's a generational thing. The death throes of the Boomers. They enjoyed a seemingly charmed life and all of it is crashing down around their ears and they seem to have a hard time understanding that the old solutions to such problems just don't work anymore.

Then again, I could be wrong. They all probably could be Captain Planet villains.

I think your on to something with that Ashley. It most likely is a generational thing and many differences in acceptable ideas.

With Mitt Romney though, what we have to go on is what is written on his poster. If he is just trying to please his evil masters, then all we have to go on about him is someone who wants to please those villains. Of course his opinions may be made more clear once he doesn't have a over bearing party of what he should say. Unfortunately, I don't like the things that he is saying and I feel like there shouldn't be a chance for me to be proven wrong.

Funny, I think that about the whole Clint Eastwood thing. Eastwood is pro gay marriage and pro-choice. He's from a time where those things weren't necessarily contrary with the Republican Party.

And yeah, I don't think Romney was always this right-wing, but at the same time I really can't dig anyone who's willing to compromise that much just for power. I thought McCain was a sensible guy until he ran. And it wouldn't stop after election.

I think a lot of it has to do with the Republicans getting hijacked by fanatics, be it religious, big business or the Tea Baggers. Compared to the other clowns that ran against him in the primaries, you really can't blame the voters for saying, "Anything but Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich." Now that he's on the national level, all he really can do is parrot what's been stated and repeated for the last 20 years about small government, low taxes (but never stated who the lower taxes is for), hyper military spending and making America the way it used to be.

What's sad is people will vote for him strictly on party or racial lines rather than listen to what either of the candidates have to say.

As a non-American, I can sort of see his appeal.

His views expressed by the candiates on science & technology do seem to be more though out and likely better in the long run for America in those fields, even though some of his views on societal issues are not exactly pleasant. Although it's sad that yet again the us election seem to be focusing on the same set of issues/policies as those 4/8/12/... years ago.

Personally, I would have liked to see paul get the nomination, not because I agree with his views but because giving his crazy christian reconstructionalist/neo-confederate ideas that potent a platform would likely shock the more moderate elements of the society into getting their act together in pushing for reforms in the political circus

Edorien.

I'm wary that you underestimate Ron Paul's gravity.

He really resonates with those who haven't really thought about their politics and are just fed up with what's going on without giving it any real understanding. Now you've got this guy who's saying he's gonna cripple the federal government and these people buy into it hook, line, and sinker because they think the less the government messes with them, the less problems there will be.

Those people are reactionary and they are many and they happen to be anti-war for the most part.

Yeah, I guess I get a little caught up over ladies reproductive choices, and GSM rights as those things affect my life every day and are still being fought for. Sorry if having priorities like this bugs you but I'm not going to vote against my own interests. Preference =/= ignorance.

It's not really that, I fully recognize that his policies would have crippled your government, undone a large chunk of social progress that has been made, and destabilized the middle-east, africa and some parts of the pacific.
However in the ideal case, placing obama and paul is opposition would have likely resulted in a swing away from the more extreme positions and a lessening of the influence of the religious right, as more people get involved ( voter participation in us ~55%, uk ~68%, germany 80%)

But as that's not happened, it looks a lot like these elections won't stimulate any real change in the system and idiocy like this

will continue.

I never said vote for Romney, but good thing that you let us know you won't give a shit about critical thinking if the mere possibility of understanding where other people are coming from causes friction against where you're coming from. That's real smart.

Maybe I already know, and I'm tired of others seriously not getting where people like me are coming from.

I've done my critical thinking while watching the war on women unfold. The last thing we'd need is a fuck like Romney in there circle-jerking with a republican majority in congress.

Of course its not going to occur to you to give a fuck about what it means for women, not your problem, right? Of course there's going to be fucking friction, not because I'm a blathering moron who can't see things from different points of view, but because every time I am asked to do so I am always the one who has to give up issues that are important to me for a whole lotta nuthin'

I know you didn't say "go out and vote Romney", but some shit's just a little close to home for me to want to play with mentally.

So you prefer a GOP that looks like Ryan and Ron Paul?
Is it all the same shit to you because you don't give a shit whether your enemy is a moderate conservative or a pseudofascist misanthrope, because in the end they're your enemy?
Can't you see how stupidly blind that is?

I don't think the Republican party got hijacked, I think the Republican party knew very well who they were getting in bed with when they started catering to the ultra-conservative and the racist. And it was a long primary for the Republicans, they weren't as united as they usually are. They settle on Romney, I don't think its an "anything but" thing.

And I get where ape descendant is coming from because Romney being previously moderate isn't gong to mean shit if he's president. Obama certainly had to compromise on his campaign promises (remember when he was for nuclear disarmament and closing Guantanamo Bay?), Romney is surrounding himself with nutjobs who won't let him forget it. Even Bush probably wouldn't have been so bad if he didn't surround himself with yes men and aides who believed in pre-emptive war.

Good thing you get where she's coming from, 'cause she wouldn't extend you the same favor if you ever talk about comprehension.
I wonder if she's ever told the NAACP to fuck off because Martin Luther King Jr. didn't favor homosexuality. Or is that different because she hadn't thought through the stupidity of her rant?

I doubt she does that for absolutely everyone, we just all got our limits. At least King never promised that he'd be a champion of LGBT rights, like Romney once promised. MLK was also, obviously, a black man in a time before the LGBT movement really got on a roll, and even if he was around today and still had those views, its really up to black people to critique their leaders for this kind of thing, not white people. Romney, obviously, is white, Ape is certainly in her right to collect our trash.

Plus, there's nothing redeemable about Romney's position, other than "it could be worse"!

Sounds like homophobic apologism to me!

/badally

Alan...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewa...nt-47-percent/

You know...

Hmph.

Yeah, that's the problem - acknowledging shades of grey is all well and good, but I struggle to see "Well there are way bigger dickholes than Romney around!" as a reason to actively like the guy.

Except that that's why a lot of the left also like Obama.
Should I not like Obama either because he immediately acknowledged Peña Nieto as President of Mexico regardless of electoral fraud? Does liking Obama make me a traitor to my country thus?
Should I fuck off for liking him despite of doing something most of Mexico won't forgive? Should YOU also fuck off for not giving two shits about Mexico to even know that fact? Is that how the world works?

The truth is that if you can't see why I said that I sort of like Romney, and don't even care of WHY I'm saying that, you'll all end up being hypocrites in the end, because there will be a limit at which you will have to set a double standard because you also can't possibly like every single fucking detail of every single fucking person you've ever liked, supported, used as an example, or even just spoken sympathetically about.
Maybe I have a point when I speak about even the good things Stalin did, instead of choosing the pussy-ass politically correct approach of not ever speaking about anyone with even an iota of bad rep and pretending those who are seen by the general public as infallible because god forbid we ever deal with political leaders as inconsistent people.

Dude, cool your jets; there's a difference between seeing your point but remaining to be convinced, and being too grindingly stupid to understand any part of your argument.

I was cool; you should know by now how I speak. It is now that I'm actually pissed, because there's nothing I hate more in forums than people whining about HOW one says shit instead of WHAT that shit is.

Holy shit this.

I noticed I didn't actually finish my last paragraph:

Maybe I have a point when I speak about even the good things Stalin did, instead of choosing the pussy-ass politically correct approach of not ever speaking about anyone with even an iota of bad rep and pretending those who are seen favorably by the general public are infallible because god forbid we ever deal with political leaders as inconsistent people.

That's funny that you would agree with Alan's feeling that it's infuriating when people only look at how you say something and not what you say.

Are you referring to the 8 page thread where I was willfully and/or ignorantly taken out of context repeatedly, or the 3 page troll thread of ethnic slurs?

I'll see how keeping my ignore list empty goes, but I have a feeling that the occasional insightful post in a sea of memes wouldn't be a great loss.

I was referring to your responses to my posts. To me, it's funny that you would agree with Alan so much because you have demonstrated the opposite of that sentiment; you have literally responded exclusively to profanity, text size, punctuation, and terms you don't understand, rather then to what I was actually saying to you.

Pretty sure I responded to everyone, but might have missed a few in the ensuing dogpile. Once it becomes clear that I'm getting caught up in a bukake circle that's taken a sharp derail then it's time to throw my hands up and go look at pictures of puppies and kittens.

Call it tone policing if you want, but I think people can have a difference of opinion that doesn't have to degenerate into name calling or other forms of abuse, especially if it isn't even funny. If we can't have either a civil conversation or a hillarious one, then there's not much point. Sorry if I pissed in anybodies victimhood affirmation bowl of cornflakes.

It's funny that you would say that as out of everyone on these boards you are the only one who comes across as having a genuine victim complex and an inability to have a conversation that is either civil or entertaining.

So what happened to agreeing with Alan's post that it's infuriating when people respond to how you say something and not what you say?

I'm inclined to believe you're being dishonest. Here's an example of before anybody else said something to you; it was just the two of us talking:

Do you see how you literally didn't even respond to what I said? It's as if my post went like this:

This wasn't you throwing your hands up and being frustrated. This was you getting defensive. That thread had nothing to do with you. It wasn't a personal attack upon you but you responded to a huge number of our posts as if it was, and that sentiment only intensified as the thread grew.

It is tone policing. You dismissed most of my posts because you felt they were "too emotional" or "too angry," and now you're implying that I am overly sensitive when you say I have a victim mentality. It is an increasingly progressive break down in logic: I have to be civil and refrain from expressing my emotions because it bothers you, but when I am bothered by you, I am being oversensitive. It's a double standard, Jonathan. It's a bag of tricks. So, aside from the clown car of wrongs that are done to people and deemed as normal, they also have to get past this when they even try to respond to it. When I make an emotionless remark, such as using the term Cracker Von Patriarch, you take it personally and feel it's an unprovoked attack on you because you're privileged enough to be blind to the things that are done to me.

It is a function of privilege for you. You don't have some of this shit as a major part of your life and it's easy for you to remain detached in conversations about them or even ignore that they exist at all, so of course you are going to see yourself as an objective speaker and to further expect me to refrain from any emotional response that makes you uncomfortable. I'm being irrational. I'm being hyperbolic, while you are logical, and civil, and collected.

If anyone is being a victim here, it's you for demanding that I cut this shit out while you rub it in my face.

I can only go in circles for so long saying "that's not what I said, here's what I said" before it turns in to pages and pages of "NUH UH YOU ARE" which is boring and trite. I refuse to take part in a third thread that becomes a multi-page epic of stupidity. Two was too many, and I'm done responding to ad hominem slap fights on the gothic dot net political forum.

I'm not demanding you do anything. Make whatever points or arguments or threads you want, anywhere on spectrum ranging the sublime to insipid. If I agree or disagree with something and feel like posting I will. When it gets to the point where I don't feel like there's any value in responding any more I figure it's nice to let you know a member of your audience is going to a new theater.

So yeah, I agree with Alan. I hope that is ok with everyone and we can move on with our fucking lives now.

The line about "It makes me feel really uncomfortable, so expect an outpouring of community backlash any day now" was made as fascetiously as possible, and I figured that intent was pretty clear. I guess it wasn't. So if I need to use sarcasm tags to avoid drama I'll slap 'em in as needed.

Um...yeah I think everyone here gathered that you were being sarcastic, that was not the issue.

I don't know why you feel you need to reiterate that. I know that it was sarcasm.

I said that you did not respond to my post. I said that you only responded to the term Cracker Von Patriarch, and that statement remains true.

cricket cricket

Sorry I didn't know I was being graded on response time. Hard to believe but I do have other obligations than clicking reply fast enough here. /.sarcasm

I still think the elevatorgate fiasco was a trumped up affair, and if my thinking so is that bothersome I am very sorry. Somehow amidst all the words and care no one seemed to bother with the fact that not even the woman thought it was a big deal.

Tell you what - I was wrong and you won the Elevatorgate argument. I am perfectly fine with having an opinion on it that you or others find objectionable. I appreciate all the interest in my meaningless off hand opinions in that thread and others.

Okay and actually on topic: Alan I get where you are coming from and I agree that we should be able to openly discuss the good qualities of atrocious people as well as the awful things about good people, because human beings are not pure good or pure evil and there is a lot that can be learned and gained by acknowledging a person in their entirety.

That being said I disagree about Romney, back when he started his presidential campaign I may have agreed to some degree but at some point, and I really can't say exactly when, the things he has said and done have gone beyond pandering to the extreme elements of the Republican party. I don't know if saying and doing those things for so long made him start to believe them or if it was pandering to a more liberal state that hid his true colors until now, either way he no longer stands for the same things that he stood for in the past but it isn't just that. It would be easy to say that he is out of touch and doesn't understand the struggles that people face but I don't see ignorance in his actions, I don't hear it in his words, I mean yes, he has no idea what actually constitutes "middle class" but that isn't what I mean. What I see is someone who knows what the consequences of the stances he has taken are, he knows that people will and in fact are suffering because of words he has spoken, he simply does not care. To me that is inexcusable.

And again that is the issue, you never bothered to try and understand what the actual problem was. There are only so many different ways to put it so I'm just going to quote myself You have a habit of seeing things as individual events, as self-contained little bubbles and I understand why you do that. It is human nature to want to simplify and compartmentalize things but some things have to be viewed in context, they need the broader picture to be understood.

You should calm the fuck down. That's not how to make civil conversation and you're out of control.

But yeah, I get you. Even if a person is pretty cool about some things, I completely understand if there is just one thing that someone absolutely can't abide by. It's not my place to judge how someone wants to prioritize what is important to them, and doubly so if it's not something I can be involved in.

For your information I like it when my blood boils, it is my preferred state of being.

I thought it was a big deal. She handled her situation in her own way. But she told you why it was bad that it ever happened in the first place. The community backlash was disgusting and terrifying.

It tells me that I won't feel safe anywhere and if I try to say something to make places feel safer for me, I will be ridiculed and thrown to the streets. I find that to be a big fucking deal.

You keep ignoring that and telling us, "she was okay with it, why bother"? I'm not okay with it, there are many other people not okay with it.

So a reply from one person's capabilities of being able to handle a single situation accounts for every other person in countless other situations just like that one?

How about this, I was hit on while serving. I was working, with sex being the last thing i was thinking about. The guy however felt that he needed to stop me, in the middle of my shift, and ask me to go back to his place. I told him very reasonably and politely, no. Because I didn't want him to find a reason to complain and get me fired, I made sure it was as nice as possible. He attacked me, both verbally and physically. In a public space, full of people. I won't get into how no one even cared, but i will ask you this, what do you think would have happened if i were in a closed off space, alone with him? Say, an elevator for example?

Oh, but that didn't happen. The guy was nice.

Really? So was the guy in the restaurant at first. But, you know what, your right. I'm sorry I have trust issues. I'm sorry I can't judge if your going to be reasonable or not, if I tell you no.

And then we get back on topic... damnit, I wish it didn't take me an hour to type things. lol.

It just took me two hours to read fifteen pages of Edward Said's Orientalism, don't feel bad XD