PDA

View Full Version : Take Three: Mitts double flip-flop



Qtec
07-31-2012, 08:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Take Three: Mitt Romney Now Says He Stands By Palestinian ‘Culture’ Comments </div></div>

The guy is a disaster.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>On Sunday, Mitt Romney boldly declared that Israel’s economic superiority over the Palestinians was due to its culture. On Tuesday morning, he dismissed any notion that he had even discussed Palestinian culture. On Tuesday night, Romney reversed himself yet again, in an op-ed entitled “Culture Does Matter.”</span>

“During my recent trip to Israel, I had suggested that the choices a society makes about its culture play a role in creating prosperity, and that the significant disparity between Israeli and Palestinian living standards was powerfully influenced by it,” Romney wrote in the National Review. “In some quarters, that comment became the subject of controversy. But what exactly accounts for prosperity if not culture?”

In an interview earlier the very same day with FOX News, Romney told interviewer Carl Cameron that he “did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy” and that he “certainly [doesn’t] intend to address that during my campaign.”

That interview appeared to be directly at odds both with Romney’s original speech, in which he directly compared the per capita GDP of Israel and the Palestinian territories and attributed Israel’s comparative strength to “culture” and the “hand of providence.” It also directly contradicts the first paragraph of his National Review op-ed, in which he explicitly says he was comparing the two economies and cultures.

In his op-ed, Romney went on to make a point about economic policy, arguing that open markets and freedom were superior to closed communist systems and citing the former West Germany and East Germany as proof.

The unremarkable suggestion that capitalist democracy is superior to communist authoritarianism was hardly the source of the controversy over his Jerusalem remarks, however. Romney’s op-ed did not address the central objection Palestinian officials raised over his comments: that he suggested Palestinian poverty was due to “culture” without acknowledging that the territory is under a decades-long military occupation and residents face restrictions on movement and trade. </div></div>

Mitt has failed Commander in Chief test, miserably.

Q

ugotda7
08-01-2012, 09:53 AM
So he basically used what the UN has said.....and didn't flip flop at all. And he's right on this just like the Olympics. Yeah, what a failure......as opposed to this administration under which the Middle East is crumbling and getting taken over by those who hate the West. So what exactly do you mean by fail....you should give that some more thought.

And learn to read because as usual you're misrepresenting the facts.....and then once you've got that down move on to understanding.

Soflasnapper
08-01-2012, 10:28 AM
What accounts for prosperity other than culture is $115 BILLION courtesy of the US taxpayer, and likely more than that from the half of US billionaires accounted for by Jewish Americans, who got their position to be able to be billionaires on account of their participation in the money for Israel bandwagon. Had the Palestinians received over $200 billion in subsidies over that time, I suspect they'd be doing far better at this time.

Also, not being under a military occupation for 42 years, since '67. That tends to crimp economic development slightly, as you may one day understand. I doubt one would find a high economic performance in the Warsaw Ghetto back in the day, and that is the comparison that is most apt to the Palestinians' situation. Refugees huddled into open air concentration camps that repeatedly have had whatever meager infrastructure that may have existed pounded into rubble by air attacks, tank attacks, and bulldozers.

Sure, while that's all true, it still must be cultural differences. Hey wait! Is Mitt saying Jews are better with money?

ugotda7
08-01-2012, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What accounts for prosperity other than culture is $115 BILLION courtesy of the US taxpayer, and likely more than that from the half of US billionaires accounted for by Jewish Americans, who got their position to be able to be billionaires on account of their participation in the money for Israel bandwagon. Had the Palestinians received over $200 billion in subsidies over that time, I suspect they'd be doing far better at this time.

Also, not being under a military occupation for 42 years, since '67. That tends to crimp economic development slightly, as you may one day understand. I doubt one would find a high economic performance in the Warsaw Ghetto back in the day, and that is the comparison that is most apt to the Palestinians' situation. Refugees huddled into open air concentration camps that repeatedly have had whatever meager infrastructure that may have existed pounded into rubble by air attacks, tank attacks, and bulldozers.

Sure, while that's all true, it still must be cultural differences. Hey wait! Is Mitt saying Jews are better with money? </div></div>

Really...so that's why Jews have been prosperous for what - thousands of years?

Have you by chance ever been involved with Middle East culture? If they weren't lucky with oil they would have went the way of the dinosaurs by now.

Go ahead and keep saying stupid s**t - this is.....comedy gold.

Soflasnapper
08-01-2012, 01:02 PM
Jews migrating to the US were among the poorest of the poor. So downtrodden and underprivileged, they were taken as mentally retarded back in those days, true untermenschen, it seemed, although falsely.

Here's one characterization of those days:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As the number of Yiddish speaking Jews increased in the United States, the Jews, like other immigrants, formed distinct neighborhoods in New York, Boston, Philadelphia and almost all of the larger American cities. Already the poorest of Europeans, the Jews in America constituted a “proletariat” equal to that of any other immigrant group of the time. Working mostly in the needle trades, the Jews gave native Americans the impression that they were utterly foreign to anything American and probably incapable of ever becoming Americans. Not only were the Jews not Christians, they even used the Hebrew alphabet to write their language. They observed Saturday, not Sunday, as their Sabbath. Housed in the worst tenements, they were so crowded that the space allotted to each person was only 428 cubic feet when the legal limit was 600. The death rate among the Jews of the early twentieth century was 42.4 when the average American death rate was 25.7. The New York Times repeatedly sent reporters to the Jewish neighborhoods who “recoiled from the clamor and stench of its half-starved inhabitants.”</div></div>

Here, at Jewish Buffalo on the web. (http://jbuff.com/c121400.htm)

Wiki says: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rise to affluence in the 20th century

During the 20th century, Jews in America joined the middle class, and towards the end of the 20th century, became relatively wealthy. </div></div>

So if the Jews were always wealthy for millenia, something happened along the way, at least. And in reality, the masses of Jews never were wealthy, which was instead a stereotype based on the few who were at the top.

Yes, among the reasons they were poor was extreme privation and prejudice and pogroms. And here, where they eventually flourished, it was THIS COUNTRY'S SYSTEM that created those opportunities. And what was the Jewish system or tradition that merged with the conditions here to create a relative prosperity for them? Involvement with all things on the left, trade unionism, liberal politics, a strong communitarianism amongst themselves, and etc.

Here (http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/42/42) is a link to a journal specializing in disability issues, discussing the widespread belief, even among the Zionists, that Jews were prone to mental disease/disabilities, from which degenerated state they needed to be 'cured.'

ugotda7
08-01-2012, 01:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jews migrating to the US were among the poorest of the poor. So downtrodden and underprivileged, they were taken as mentally retarded back in those days, true untermenschen, it seemed, although falsely.

Here's one characterization of those days:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As the number of Yiddish speaking Jews increased in the United States, the Jews, like other immigrants, formed distinct neighborhoods in New York, Boston, Philadelphia and almost all of the larger American cities. Already the poorest of Europeans, the Jews in America constituted a “proletariat” equal to that of any other immigrant group of the time. Working mostly in the needle trades, the Jews gave native Americans the impression that they were utterly foreign to anything American and probably incapable of ever becoming Americans. Not only were the Jews not Christians, they even used the Hebrew alphabet to write their language. They observed Saturday, not Sunday, as their Sabbath. Housed in the worst tenements, they were so crowded that the space allotted to each person was only 428 cubic feet when the legal limit was 600. The death rate among the Jews of the early twentieth century was 42.4 when the average American death rate was 25.7. The New York Times repeatedly sent reporters to the Jewish neighborhoods who “recoiled from the clamor and stench of its half-starved inhabitants.”</div></div>

Here, at Jewish Buffalo on the web. (http://jbuff.com/c121400.htm)

Wiki says: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rise to affluence in the 20th century

During the 20th century, Jews in America joined the middle class, and towards the end of the 20th century, became relatively wealthy. </div></div>

So if the Jews were always wealthy for millenia, something happened along the way, at least. And in reality, the masses of Jews never were wealthy, which was instead a stereotype based on the few who were at the top.

Yes, among the reasons they were poor was extreme privation and prejudice and pogroms. And here, where they eventually flourished, it was THIS COUNTRY'S SYSTEM that created those opportunities. And what was the Jewish system or tradition that merged with the conditions here to create a relative prosperity for them? Involvement with all things on the left, trade unionism, liberal politics, a strong communitarianism amongst themselves, and etc.




</div></div>

Did I use the word wealthy?

Learn to read.

DiabloViejo
08-01-2012, 02:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Did I use the word wealthy?

Learn to read. </div></div>


LMMFAO!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

No you didn't use the word wealthy, but you did use the word prosperous, which is a synonym for wealthy. Perhaps YOU should learn to read!

Ugotda7: Post #393116 -- “Really...so that's why Jews have been prosperous for what - thousands of years?”

Here you go, courtesy of Thesaurus.com--

Main Entry: prosperous  [pros-per-uhs]

Part of Speech: adjective

Definition: successful, thriving

Synonyms: affluent, blooming, booming, comfortable, doing well, easy, flourishing, fortunate, halcyon, in clover, in the money, lousy rich, lucky, main-line, money to burn, moneyed, on top of heap, opulent, palmy, prospering, rich, roaring, robust, sitting pretty, snug, substantial, upper-class, uptown, <span style="color: #000099"><u>wealthy</u></span>, well, well-heeled, well-off, well-to-do

Antonyms: failing, losing, poor, unprosperous, unsuccessful

I guess that home schooling didn't work out so well for you huh?
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

ugotda7
08-01-2012, 02:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Did I use the word wealthy?

Learn to read. </div></div>


LMMFAO!! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

No you didn't use the word wealthy, but you did use the word prosperous, which is a synonym for wealthy. Perhaps YOU should learn to read!

Ugotda7: Post #393116 -- “Really...so that's why Jews have been prosperous for what - thousands of years?”

Here you go, courtesy of Thesaurus.com--

Main Entry: prosperous  [pros-per-uhs]

Part of Speech: adjective

Definition: successful, thriving

Synonyms: affluent, blooming, booming, comfortable, doing well, easy, flourishing, fortunate, halcyon, in clover, in the money, lousy rich, lucky, main-line, money to burn, moneyed, on top of heap, opulent, palmy, prospering, rich, roaring, robust, sitting pretty, snug, substantial, upper-class, uptown, <span style="color: #000099"><u>wealthy</u></span>, well, well-heeled, well-off, well-to-do

Antonyms: failing, losing, poor, unprosperous, unsuccessful

I guess that home schooling didn't work out so well for you huh?
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
</div></div>


You should learn to read as well.......and as a supposedly spiritual type guy you should know there is easily a distinction between wealthy and prosperous.

DiabloViejo
08-01-2012, 03:18 PM
LOL! Keep digging yourself a hole loser! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

syn·o·nym   [sin-uh-nim]

noun

1. <span style="color: #000099">a word <u>having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language</u>, as happy, joyful, elated. A dictionary of synonyms and antonyms (or opposites), such as Thesaurus.com, is called a thesaurus.</span>

2. a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as Arcadia for pastoral simplicity or Wall Street for U.S. financial markets; metonym.

3.Biology . one of two or more scientific names applied to a single taxon.