Comments on: How Obama’s Comment about “Bitter” Conservatives is Not the Same as Romney’s Dismissal of the 47%

By: Sharon Kidwell

Sharon Kidwell — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:41:00 +0000

It just goes to show you what his priorities are – to remove guns and remove Christianity from our country. He hasn’t proved he can reach anyone; on the contrary, his administration has been nothing but lies and deceit. Now the entire country will suffer with his lieds regarding Obamacare, but we will live. However, his lies and evilness and deceit resulted in the murder of 4 innocent men in Libya and they are DEAD!

By: Guns and Religion

Guns and Religion — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 08:36:00 +0000

You give the president the courtesy of quoting his words thoroughly, yet you never gave the full Romney quote. You chopped it up to suit your argument, which is setting up a straw man argument. When he talked about 47% he said that they were the ones who would never vote for him – an accurate statement if you pay attention during elections.

I often enjoy reading this website, but your writer’s political biases are showing. Obama calling people bitter is now compassion? As a conservative feminist, I’ve given this site a lot of leeway but I think I’m done reading if this is what passes for analysis

By: ViktorNN

ViktorNN — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:59:00 +0000

It’s not my responsibility to try to speculate on what Romney said in the 2 minutes left out (or edited out).

But I will happily take responsibility to point out the hypocrisy of people like you who would likely be screaming bloody murder if an edited video making Obama look bad was thrust onto the national stage.

By: Tusconian

Tusconian — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:51:00 +0000

I have serious doubts that anyone voting for Romney gives even half a fuck about any of those things, unless they are being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

By: Tusconian

Tusconian — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:48:00 +0000

Because….the results AREN’T the same? I am sure we could have a very nice discussion about how American politics are a complete sham, in large part because of party loyalty, but….to be honest, we’re in a bind here. Unless we want to waste a vote on a third party with no chance of winning, we have to vote for the least awful in a situation like this. And while Obama’s results have been disappointing, they are still light years better than what the leaders of the Republican party want. I would rather have only half of what good was promised done than have the promises of “literally fuck off and die, anyone who isn’t a rich straight white gun-humping man” kept. This isn’t giving him a free pass, it’s saying “at least he will respect my life as a human being.” I don’t think you’ll ever understand this, because YOUR rights aren’t being challenged based on prejudice and unconstitutional religious rhetoric, and probably haven’t been challenged in recent memory, but MINE HAVE, and that makes a very big difference. People can moan all they want about token victories, lack of attention to the “real” problems, and “not liberal enough,” but when it comes down to it, if it’s between “almost certainly keep the rights you have” and “possibly have some of those rights removed,” a token victory is no longer just token. When one party is making it’s modern platform LITERALLY on removing the civil rights of millions of Americans, the only choice is to go with the other party. They aren’t the same, unless literally everything that you could describe as “not great” is the same, which honestly, would include every politician we’d get at this point in time.

By: Michael Boezi

Michael Boezi — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:38:00 +0000

Usually I think there’s not too much difference between the two parties; they are each a little left and a little right of the center line. This analysis really highlights the difference between the two men. The *way* you say something is often just as important as *what* you say. The same could be said for this post, too—thank you for caring about language!

By: Yrro Simyarin

Yrro Simyarin — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:59:00 +0000

Obama had a democratic house for two years, and didn’t get any of that done. All he got was a lousy, bloated, corporate-handout, republicanized healthcare bill that no republican voted for.

He’s followed *Bush’s* plan to get out of Iraq, to the letter, and increased our commitment in Afghanistan, all while starting a new war in Libya, and constantly attacking civilians in Pakistan. He’s evicted more immigrants than Bush did.

The one thing he has going for him on a civil rights level over republicans is removing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell… good job there.

But aside from that… what does his rhetoric matter if his actual results are exactly the same? Stand up and tell the democrats that you want something more than Republican-lite, instead of giving him a free pass because he’s on your team.

And yes, I will make exactly the same criticism to anyone voting for Romney. He stands for nothing bu the worst parts of republican-ism (if he even stands for those).

By: Tusconian

Tusconian — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 03:41:00 +0000

While I can’t agree with any of those things, it’s STILL not the same as the Republican platform. Obama made at least a feeble attempt at bringing home troops from the Middle East and closing Guantanamo. Those attempts, whether or not they were effective, were met with a LOT of open hostility from the right, which implies that while Obama may not be terribly effective, Republican leaders actively want those things to continue.

In addition to removing Civil Rights from various American citizens for reasons based entirely on demographics. For example, Obama repealed don’t ask, don’t tell. As opposed to, say, making gay marriage illegal.

So it’s less “Obama is the same as Republicans” and more “Obama is not great, and still much better than those the Republican party has to offer right now.”

By: Christian Clarkson

Christian Clarkson — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:03:00 +0000

Unrelated frivolous comment: just realised that in 10 years or so, Danell Leyva is going to look EXACTLY like Jay. Uncanny!

By: Miss_Led

Miss_Led — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:42:00 +0000

What he might have said: “I am now going to impersonate, as a joke, an elitist asshat candidate who doesn’t care about the half of the US that didn’t pay income taxes this year.”

Yeah, I don’t think he said that.

By: decius

decius — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:37:00 +0000

All I’m saying is that the baseline of human rights in the US is pretty bad. Things like extrajudicial killings and detentions were part and parcel of normal operations before 2009.

By: Yrro Simyarin

Yrro Simyarin — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:27:00 +0000

Yep, and none of those actions would fly in a modern court of law.

You going to pull up Dred Scott or Korematsu to argue that indefinite detention isn’t a big deal because we used to practice slavery and stuck all Japanese Americans in camps?

By: Lunad

Lunad — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:56:00 +0000

please, give me an example of something Romney might have said a half hour earlier, in two minutes, that would make this quote not dismissive and ignorant of the many hardworking poor in this country who don’t pay income tax.

By: Jo

Jo — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:06:00 +0000

As someone who grew up in a country with a proportional representation system (instead of british-styled majority vote) I’d just like to add: Your problem goes much deeper than the question “Is candidate A better or worse than candidate B?”

By: Kat

Kat — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:16:00 +0000

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/democrats-retreat-civil-liberties-2012-platform