Romney's CPAC speech

[avatar4321]

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-romneys-speech-withdrawing-from-the-race/

I really liked this part:


Over the years, my business has taken me to many countries. I have been struck by the enormous differences in the wealth and well-being of people of different nations. I have read a number of scholarly explanations for the disparities. I found the most convincing was that written by David Landes, a professor emeritus from Harvard University. I presume he’s a liberal–I guess that’s redundant. His work traces the coming and going of great civilizations throughout history. After hundreds of pages of analysis, he concludes with this:
If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference.

What is it about American culture that has led us to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world? We believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity: almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity—opportunity is in our DNA. Americans love God, and those who don’t have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves—a “Purpose Driven Life.” And we sacrifice everything we have, even our lives, for our families, our freedoms and our country. The values and beliefs of the free American people are the source of our nation’s strength and they always will be!

The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960’s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug—we have got to fight it like the poison it is!

The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography—even celebration of it—and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today’s grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children. How much harder it is for these children to succeed in school—and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of a nation. I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history. It is time for the people of America to fortify marriage through constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it!

Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to America’s vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength. And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture. We will always be honored to stand on principle and to stand for principle.

[glockmail]

Here's my fave of your fave:
The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of a nation. I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history. It is time for the people of America to fortify marriage through constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it!

[theHawk]

I did like :



Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug—we have got to fight it like the poison it is!


:clap:

[Pale Rider]

If everybody liked him so much, then why is he the one having to drop out of the race?

The republican party is fucked. There is now a fracture in it that I'm afraid will never be able to be mended.

[glockmail]

If everybody liked him so much, then why is he the one having to drop out of the race?
.... For these reasons:

1. The polls said that only McCain can beat Hillary or Obama.
2. "Its his turn" factor.
3. Establishment politics.

[Pale Rider]

For these reasons:

1. The polls said that only McCain can beat Hillary or Obama.
2. "Its his turn" factor.
3. Establishment politics.

All of which have clearly been established, none of which are any good.

[glockmail]

All of which have clearly been established, none of which are any good.
No they are not, but those are the reasons. Also I'm on record here saying that the polls are driven by liberals and their agenda.

[avatar4321]

If everybody liked him so much, then why is he the one having to drop out of the race?

The republican party is fucked. There is now a fracture in it that I'm afraid will never be able to be mended.

we can mend it. but it requires us to be more dilligent in the future.

[Pale Rider]

we can mend it. but it requires us to be more dilligent in the future.

I think there's too many dimwits and centrist liberal types calling themselves republican nowadays my friend, and I don't see that trend as reversible.

[typomaniac]

Oh sure; it's all the 1960s' fault that we have poverty. :lol: Like everybody was happy during the Industrial Revolution.


The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960’s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity.Damn those "liberals." We need internment camps for them. :rolleyes:

Hopefully the Republicans are finally waking up to the reality that holy-rolling hypocrites - whether mormon, evangelical, or anything else - are not good for the party and never have been.

[avatar4321]

I think there's too many dimwits and centrist liberal types calling themselves republican nowadays my friend, and I don't see that trend as reversible.

it wont be reversible if we give up and stop trying.

[avatar4321]

Oh sure; it's all the 1960s' fault that we have poverty. :lol: Like everybody was happy during the Industrial Revolution.

Damn those "liberals." We need internment camps for them. :rolleyes:

Hopefully the Republicans are finally waking up to the reality that holy-rolling hypocrites - whether mormon, evangelical, or anything else - are not good for the party and never have been.

The cultural change to encourage laziness and idleness is the cause of greater poverty today. If you dont believe that youve demonstrated you dont know a darn thing.

Keep encouraging idleness and see how wealthy you become.

[PostmodernProphet]

Damn those "liberals." We need internment camps for them.

just like a liberal....right out of the gate and they want the government to provide them with free housing......

[typomaniac]

The cultural change to encourage laziness and idleness is the cause of greater poverty today. If you dont believe that youve demonstrated you dont know a darn thing.

Keep encouraging idleness and see how wealthy you become.

Even you don't believe that there's greater poverty now than there was when we had 5-year-olds working 16-hour days.

[nevadamedic]

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-romneys-speech-withdrawing-from-the-race/

I really liked this part:

I honestly didn't think he would drop out, he is not a quitter. There has got to be something else going on here. The was a chance he still could have gotten the nomination. Also his campaign manager was just on TV saying he will probably endorse Senator McCain before the Republican National Convention and stated to win the War On Terror we need to have Senator McCain in the White House.

[Dilloduck]

Even you don't believe that there's greater poverty now than there was when we had 5-year-olds working 16-hour days.


The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960’s welfare programs created a culture of poverty

Here's Romney's exact quote. He is right

[avatar4321]

I honestly didn't think he would drop out, he is not a quitter. There has got to be something else going on here. The was a chance he still could have gotten the nomination. Also his campaign manager was just on TV saying he will probably endorse Senator McCain before the Republican National Convention and stated to win the War On Terror we need to have Senator McCain in the White House.

yeah he could have gotten the nomination. but he would have probably had to rip the country apart to do it.

Contrary to your opinion. Romney isnt the selfish person everyone claims he is.

[typomaniac]

Here's Romney's exact quote. He is right

There was a "culture of poverty" long before the 1960's, Dillo. You don't have to be a supporter of the old-school welfare programs to know that.

[Sitarro]

Hey, the welfare programs of the 60s did spur a growth in a new species called the porch monkey....... they have that going for them.

[Dilloduck]

If everybody liked him so much, then why is he the one having to drop out of the race?

The republican party is fucked. There is now a fracture in it that I'm afraid will never be able to be mended.

He decided he couldn't afford to spend more money---What makes anyone drop out of the race ?

[Dilloduck]

There was a "culture of poverty" long before the 1960's, Dillo. You don't have to be a supporter of the old-school welfare programs to know that.

No one has claimed there wasn't poverty before that. It was just such a nice thing after the government started funding it that poor parents starting teaching it to poor children. You can get there by just being stupid of course but they will show you the ropes once you get there.

[manu1959]

I think there's too many dimwits and centrist liberal types calling themselves republican nowadays my friend, and I don't see that trend as reversible.

true....supertuesday proved that on that day....there are 14 million left of center 8 million right of center and less than 3 million on the far right.....

[Yurt]

If everybody liked him so much, then why is he the one having to drop out of the race?

The republican party is fucked. There is now a fracture in it that I'm afraid will never be able to be mended.

He is mormon. Glockmail also has it right and most likely Manu (centrist ideas), however, mormon wins the day.

[Dilloduck]

If he had been spending other people's money he would have stayed in.

[Yurt]

If he had been spending other people's money he would have stayed in.

interesting point

elaborate?

[Dilloduck]

interesting point

elaborate?

It's all I hear from commentators regarding everyones departure. They can't afford to go on. Sure it's a fund raising issue but the blatant fact is that they hasve blown millions. You MUST have access to money or the power to raise it to run for president. He crunched the numbers and knew he was dead meat if he didnt want to risk his entire fortune. He chose to keep his bucks.

[typomaniac]

No one has claimed there wasn't poverty before that. It was just such a nice thing after the government started funding it that poor parents starting teaching it to poor children. You can get there by just being stupid of course but they will show you the ropes once you get there.

You make it sound like the government funded poverty by design. Why would they do that?

Think about (and answer) the question before you blurt out another silly soundbite.

[nevadamedic]

just like a liberal....right out of the gate and they want the government to provide them with free housing......

:lol:

[nevadamedic]

yeah he could have gotten the nomination. but he would have probably had to rip the country apart to do it.

Contrary to your opinion. Romney isnt the selfish person everyone claims he is.

I never said he was selfish at all. I said he wasn't the right person for the job and he flip flopped on every issue and attacked Ronald Reagan up, down, left and right for years and even based political campaigns saying how aweful President Reagan is and was and then after he decided to run for President himself he claimed to be molded in his image. That right there pissed me off.

[nevadamedic]

Hey, the welfare programs of the 60s did spur a growth in a new species called the porch monkey....... they have that going for them.

Porch monkey? You mean like Obama? Oh wait he is just a Monkey. Just think, if he get's elected(he wont, but if) he will turn the national food into fried chicken and watermelon and the national beverage Old English 40oz.

[Dilloduck]

You make it sound like the government funded poverty by design. Why would they do that?

Think about (and answer) the question before you blurt out another silly soundbite.

They didn't do it by design. They actually thought that people would use these programs as a means to independence. It was a flop.

[avatar4321]

They didn't do it by design. They actually thought that people would use these programs as a means to independence. It was a flop.

actually, I am not convinced of that. I think some politicians knew exactly that they were making their constituents dependent on them for success.

[PostmodernProphet]

actually, I am not convinced of that. I think some politicians knew exactly that they were making their constituents dependent on them for success.

A.....men!.....

[typomaniac]

actually, I am not convinced of that. I think some politicians knew exactly that they were making their constituents dependent on them for success.

Then you and PMP are both certifiably insane. :uhoh:

[Abbey Marie]

If everybody liked him so much, then why is he the one having to drop out of the race?

The republican party is fucked. There is now a fracture in it that I'm afraid will never be able to be mended.

I hear you Pale. That is how I felt when so many people on this board took political quizzes, and Duncan Hunter was their most compatible candidate. It's a sad but true fact that the best rarely win the political game.

[avatar4321]

Then you and PMP are both certifiably insane. :uhoh:

no. we simply understand the nature of man when he gets power.

[Kathianne]

actually, I am not convinced of that. I think some politicians knew exactly that they were making their constituents dependent on them for success.

and would be backed up by many:

http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/2002/article/2032


The Moynihan Report
30 Years Later and Counting
By Elizabeth Wright

[Reprinted from Issues & Views Winter 1995]

"The situation may indeed have begun to feed on itself," reads a gloomy reflection in the Moynihan Report. Published in 1965, few public documents have been the subject of so much misunderstanding and scorn.

Just what was the situation that was "feeding" on itself? The Report, a meticulous piece of research, described the ongoing disintegration of the black family, as demonstrated especially by the weakened role of men. It emphasized the need for public policies designed to strengthen the economic role of black men. Entitled, "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action," its central thesis raised questions about the ability of the black family to continue its important function as socializer of future generations.

Much of the information in the Report was first communicated by the eminent black sociologist Franklin Frazier, who published important studies on black culture from the 1930s to 1950s. In a sense, the Report merely updated the early findings and observations of Frazier and other black social scientists. A major reason why it set off a firestorm of criticism is because it made the mistake of being published when the high follies of the 1960s were in full swing.

This year, the 30th anniversary of the Report’s publication, finds the black family in even greater distress. In fact, the Report’s term "disorganized," which was used to describe much of black family life at the time, today sounds rather restrained. Not only have the follies of the ‘60s not ceased, they have been buttressed by official government policies that reward capricious lifestyles undreamed of even in the heady days of the flower children.

In 1965, when news about the contents of the Report hit the fan, an armed assault team of social scientists, black and white, set out to discredit its findings. Politically correct ideology was blatantly substituted for objective investigation. In fact, several of these academics condemned what they called the Report’s "cold, scientific" approach to the facts.

Refusing to distinguish reality from pipe dream, people who once were judged sane set off in all directions to go on record as pious protectors of the downtrodden. Instead of helping poor blacks comprehend the cycle in which they had become trapped, people who should have known better set in motion new forces that insured the poor’s continued decline.

Numbers of black academics determined to conduct their own "research," with some of them boldly stating just what they would be looking for. They, by God, were going to locate the "strengths" of the black family and put to rest this talk about its disintegration. Without a trace of shame, they announced that the ultimate goal of what they called "black social science" was not to achieve scientific competency, but to bring about "black liberation."

....

I don't think it was necessarily intentional, but the repercussions were known early on and nothing was done to stop the disintegration of black families, which had been very strong post civil war, until the civil rights legislation.

[MtnBiker]

Generally what party do people vote for that are dependent on the government?

[bullypulpit]

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-romneys-speech-withdrawing-from-the-race/

I really liked this part:

The gist was, as it has been since 9-11, "If you vote Democrat, you'll be killed in you sleep by rabid, islamo-fascist weasels as they rip your flesh."

[avatar4321]

The gist was, as it has been since 9-11, "If you vote Democrat, you'll be killed in you sleep by rabid, islamo-fascist weasels as they rip your flesh."

obviously you didnt read it well enough.

[typomaniac]

no. we simply understand the nature of man when he gets power.
Right: I'd better not confuse you two with facts...

You realize that you're in the exact same position as the people who say that 9/11 was an inside job. Any piece of reality that doesn't fit what they want to see is dismissed. Sound familiar?

[Kathianne]

Right: I'd better not confuse you two with facts...

You realize that you're in the exact same position as the people who say that 9/11 was an inside job. Any piece of reality that doesn't fit what they want to see is dismissed. Sound familiar?

What facts?

[typomaniac]

What facts?

How about this: the poor don't vote!

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

That fact alone blows avatar's theory about politicians using welfare as a means to buy constituents' votes completely out of the water.

[Kathianne]

How about this: the poor don't vote!

It doesn't get much simpler than that.

That fact alone blows avatar's theory about politicians using welfare as a means to buy constituents' votes completely out of the water.

Ok, so why do the dems keep fighting ID? If the 'poor' don't vote, those that do have an address. So, let them prove it, get counted, vote-ONCE and be done with it.

Fuck the homeless, that IS your point, right?

[typomaniac]

Ok, so why do the dems keep fighting ID?Because what starts out as an ID proposal always becomes a poll tax. Aren't pubbies supposed to hate new taxes?

If the 'poor' don't vote, those that do have an address. So, let them prove it, get counted, vote-ONCE and be done with it.

Fuck the homeless, that IS your point, right?No, but if they're constantly intoxicated or mentally ill, they probably shouldn't be voting anyway.

[Little-Acorn]

It wasn't Romney's last speech of his 2008 Presidential run. It's the first speech of his 2012 run.

[Yurt]

Because what starts out as an ID proposal always becomes a poll tax. Aren't pubbies supposed to hate new taxes?
No, but if they're constantly intoxicated or mentally ill, they probably shouldn't be voting anyway.


stop thinking in terms of logical fallacy. always?

[MtnBiker]

How about this: the poor don't vote!

It doesn't get much simpler than that.



Sure they do.



Income

Voting-age citizens who lived in
families with incomes below
$20,000 represented 11 percent of
the total population and 8 percent
of the voting population

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf

Not a big number of voters, but to say that the poor do not vote is untrue.

[5stringJeff]

Porch monkey? You mean like Obama? Oh wait he is just a Monkey. Just think, if he get's elected(he wont, but if) he will turn the national food into fried chicken and watermelon and the national beverage Old English 40oz.

Honestly... WTF is wrong with you?

[typomaniac]

Sure they do.



http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf

Not a big number of voters, but to say that the poor do not vote is untrue.

Weren't you complaining in another thread about how flawed the US census is? :laugh:

[MtnBiker]

No.

[typomaniac]

No.

Well, somebody was. I must be getting old. :dunno:

[MtnBiker]

Well, somebody was. I must be getting old. :dunno:

Yup, quite old.


All this proves is that the Census Bureau is even more f'ed up than most people realize. :dunno:

[typomaniac]

Yup, quite old.

Now that was truly mean. Maybe there's hope for you, yet.

[JohnDoe]

interesting report mtn,

i had no idea that 50% of the poor voted.....but they still vote in much lower percentages than the more affluent...


Income and
Employment Status
Citizens with higher incomes were
more likely to register and to vote.
The voting rate among citizens
living in families with annual
incomes of $50,000 or more was
77 percent, compared with 48 percent
for citizens living in families
with incomes under $20,000.9
Employment status is another key
indicator of voting participation.
In the 2004 presidential election,
66 percent of employed citizens
reported voting, compared with
51 percent of those who were in
the labor force but not employed.

[Psychoblues]

It's worse than you think, JD.

[Kathianne]

Sure they do.



http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf

Not a big number of voters, but to say that the poor do not vote is untrue.

Which is exactly why the polls always seem to 'inflate' Democratic numbers. The people who id themselves as Democrats are much higher than those that claim to be Republican; however when it comes voting day, a higher percentage of those that are Republican usually turn out. This November will be different, if the primary season is any indication.

[MtnBiker]

interesting report mtn,

i had no idea that 50% of the poor voted.....but they still vote in much lower percentages than the more affluent...

I could be that people in the lowest quintile are mostly the young, which tend to not vote as much.

[typomaniac]

I could be that people in the lowest quintile are mostly the young, which tend to not vote as much.

Why do you keep flip-flopping between your definitions of "poor?" Is it the lowest quintile, people in households making under $20,000, or just whatever happens to suit the needs of your argument?

Better stick to tricycling over those bunny hills...

[MtnBiker]

Who said the poor don't vote?

I mispoke when using the word quintile. The lowest quintile income is below the $20,000 level. For purposes of voting demographics the lowest group in the Census report is $20,000 and below.