Ann Romney: I don't consider myself wealthy

[a777pilot]

The most intelligent comment in the whole thread.

With proper investment strategy, it's impossible to lose a fortune of $250M. If the Romneys lost half, it wouldn't affect their lifestyle in the slightest, nor would doubling it, either. It doesn't make any difference if they pay 15% in federal income tax, or 35%. On a day to day basis, even living very well, money is nearly meaningless, which is the true definition of Wealth. It's like McCain not knowing how many homes they own, the kind of car he's chauffeured around in, or the price of gas.

It's two Americas, with an ever widening gulf between them.

LOL!

It's like McCain not knowing how many homes they own, the kind of car he's chauffeured around in, or the price of gas.

Or Bobo, the Post Turtle, knowing how many States there are.

 

[Fern]

Why are we attacking Ms Romney?

She's not running for office.

I'll bet the OP is now googling the kiddies.

Fern

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I understand He might win a second term and I also understand it is because of the 22d Amendment.

I have been campaigning for the repeal of the 22d Amendment since 1972. I think I am making progress. Slow, but still, progress.

Repeal the 22d Amendment, today......Now!

I don't live in a hole.....OK, I do spend a lot of time in my basement, but I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

What possible relevance could the 22nd Amendment have to this issue? Are you implying that President Bush would be running, and beat President Obama, if it didn't exist? It's too late to run President Reagan again . . .

 

[PingviN]

This woman, Mrs. Romney, has MS. Please explain to me how all her money solves that little problem.

I don't know if it solves them, but I'm pretty sure it helps not having to worry about paying for medicine, putting food on the table and not living on a paycheck to paycheck basis. I bet having MS sucks, but I bet having MS and not being a millionaire sucks even harder.

 

[Thump553]

I understand He might win a second term and I also understand it is because of the 22d Amendment.

I have been campaigning for the repeal of the 22d Amendment since 1972. I think I am making progress. Slow, but still, progress.

Repeal the 22d Amendment, today......Now!

I don't live in a hole.....OK, I do spend a lot of time in my basement, but I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I think if you ran a popularity poll on the various Amendments (which an explanation of what they say) the 22nd would be one of the most popular. Personally the experiences of countries like Russia, Libya, Eygpt, North Korea, etc. sour me totally on the concept of a lifetime President. Eight years is long enough.

And this 51st state thing? You seem fixated on it, a verbal gaffe from four years ago kind of loses its effect.

 

[a777pilot]

I think if you ran a popularity poll on the various Amendments (which an explanation of what they say) the 22nd would be one of the most popular. Personally the experiences of countries like Russia, Libya, Eygpt, North Korea, etc. sour me totally on the concept of a lifetime President. Eight years is long enough.

And this 51st state thing? You seem fixated on it, a verbal gaffe from four years ago kind of loses its effect.

When a Democrat makes a mistake, it's just, well, a mistake. If a Republican does the very same thing, that Republican is totally stupid and out of touch.

I get it.

 

[CallMeJoe]

When a Democrat makes a mistake, it's just, well, a mistake. If a Republican does the very same thing, that Republican is totally stupid and out of touch.

I get it.

I believe his point was that when you have to reach back almost four years to find a candidate's gaffe, it looks like you're kind of desperate.

 

[a777pilot]

What possible relevance could the 22nd Amendment have to this issue? Are you implying that President Bush would be running, and beat President Obama, if it didn't exist? It's too late to run President Reagan again . . .

This issue of the 22d Amendment is a devision from the OP.

 

[Paul98]

This woman, Mrs. Romney, has MS. Please explain to me how all her money solves that little problem.

What does that have to do with being wealthy?

 

[CallMeJoe]

This issue of the 22d Amendment is a devision from the OP.

Division?
Diversion?
Delusion?

Are you implying he was blinded (de-visioned)?

 

[Doppel]

What a naive idiot to say such a thing.

#6

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This issue of the 22d Amendment is a devision from the OP.

What is a "devision," and what does it have to do with the topic?

 

[Jhhnn]

Why are we attacking Ms Romney?

She's not running for office.

I'll bet the OP is now googling the kiddies.

Fern

I'm not attacking her, at all. But if we think about it at all, we need to realize that her husband was born wealthy, then became even wealthier. If she's disconnected from the reality that the other 99%+ of us share, it seems unlikely that he isn't as well.

He seems to have come to the conclusion that whatever is good for his class is good for America, which isn't necessarily true at all. Let's face it- trickledown economics have failed us miserably, but served them very well indeed. And it's not like the truly wealthy need to be wealthier, either.

Here's his disconnect on education-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/equality-of-opportunity-never-mind/

And here's one of his economic advisors doing a flipflop on carried interest-

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-stump/101381/team-romney-rallies-around-carried-interest

 

[a777pilot]

Division?
Diversion?
Delusion?

Are you implying he was blinded (de-visioned)?

I do belive I intended to say "diversion". I could be wrong.

Good catch. Thanks.

 

[a777pilot]

What is a "devision," and what does it have to do with the topic?

Excellent question. Let me make up an answer for you.

It is what how I see things..... with devision.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Excellent question. Let me make up an answer for you.

It is what how I see things..... with devision.

Sooooo . . . what does the 22nd Amendment have to do with President Obama's re-election?

 

[Remobz]

Excellent question. Let me make up an answer for you.

It is what how I see things..... with devision.

You sound desperate!

 

[a777pilot]

Sooooo . . . what does the 22nd Amendment have to do with President Obama's re-election?

Everything.

Since the advent of the 22d Amendment no incumbent President not seriously challenged in his own Party for the nomination has lost re-election. Why? Because the out Party puts up their sacrificial lamb (The heavies wait for four years when they don't have to run against an incumbent.). Do you really thin that if there was not a 22d Amendment that Clinton would have been the Democrat candidate? Without the 22d Amendment the Democrat nominee would have been Mario Cuomo. At least Mr. Cuomo would have kept his pants on.

 

[a777pilot]

You sound desperate!

LOL!

Good one.

 

[Jhhnn]

You sound desperate!

He is- it's how Righties avoid cognitive dissonance- duh-version enabling denial. If they can avoid thinking about it, dealing with it head-on, why, it just doesn't exist. Problem? Gone!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Everything.

Since the advent of the 22d Amendment no incumbent President not seriously challenged in his own Party for the nomination has lost re-election. Why? Because the out Party puts up their sacrificial lamb (The heavies wait for four years when they don't have to run against an incumbent.). Do you really thin that if there was not a 22d Amendment that Clinton would have been the Democrat candidate? Without the 22d Amendment the Democrat nominee would have been Mario Cuomo. At least Mr. Cuomo would have kept his pants on.

Huh? The Lewinsky story broke well into President Clinton's second term - the Starr report was published in 1998. His philandering was well known before he was nominated the first time, and there had been no new public developments on that front before he hammered Dole in 1996.

22nd Amendment or none, there is significant power in incumbency, and I can't imagine either party nominating someone other than the President under anything less than extraordinary circumstances. The Amendment was passed in 1947, and to the best of my knowledge neither party ever nominated someone else over an incumbent President in the 170 years before that, so I doubt it would happen with any regularity now. Why is it you think this would make any difference whatsoever?

In addition, this statement, which begins your post, is categorically false: "Since the advent of the 22d Amendment no incumbent President not seriously challenged in his own Party for the nomination has lost re-election." The elder Bush was not "seriously" challenged in his own party in 1992 (unless you consider Pat Buchanan and David Duke serious competitors, which they were not - Buchanan won 18 delegates to Bush's 2,000+), and lost his re-election bid.

 

[a777pilot]

He is- it's how Righties avoid cognitive dissonance- duh-version enabling denial. If they can avoid thinking about it, dealing with it head-on, why, it just doesn't exist. Problem? Gone!

Name a problem that is facing this nation.

 

[a777pilot]

Huh? The Lewinsky story broke well into President Clinton's second term - the Starr report was published in 1998. His philandering was well known before he was nominated the first time, and there had been no new public developments on that front before he hammered Dole in 1996.

22nd Amendment or none, there is significant power in incumbency, and I can't imagine either party nominating someone other than the President under anything less than extraordinary circumstances. The Amendment was passed in 1947, and to the best of my knowledge neither party ever nominated someone else over an incumbent President in the 170 years before that, so I doubt it would happen with any regularity now. Why is it you think this would make any difference whatsoever?

All good points, but prior to the 22d an incumbent had the power of being an incumbent even in their second term. Also, if an incumbent was so bad, he knew he could be replaced and that very thought tempered his actions and policies. What happens now is that the out party puts up a sacirficial lamb to challenge the incumbent and once that incumbent wins, is answerable to no one and is also a lame duck. Second terms after the 22d have usually been disasters.

Besides, term limits of any kind is an affront to freedom.

 

[Jhhnn]

Name a problem that is facing this nation.

I already did- see my last post, above.

 

[cybrsage]

So are we all in agreement that taking a few seconds worth of video out of a much larger video and using it out of context is wrong?