DCP's Stock goes Down again

[_Chap]

Wait a minute. Obama was also a child of privilege, perhaps even more so than Romney, so he must be just as phoney.

I'm not primarily concerned with questions of what you call 'phoniness' here (let those who want to equate Obama's background with Romney's do their best), but with stupidity. Any candidate for the US Presidency who has not got the common sense to avoid saying in front of a large audience that he thinks 47% of the population are in effects bums and moochers is just not clever enough to be let anywhere near the White House. It wouldn't be safe for America or for the world.

Its as simple as that.

[_Chap]

I miss the old days when I just thought DCP was wrong but interesting. Now he's not even interesting.

Golden.

I too genuinely regret the loss of DCP as a no-holds barred and very intelligent online cage-fighter for ... well, I'm not really sure for what. He usually refused to get down to any doctrinal or historical specifics in discussion, but his agility in doing so while engineering enough distracting counter-attacks to keep the LDS crowd cheering and thinking they had won was truly great circus. That was an entertainer.

[_Drifting]

Wait a minute. Obama was also a child of privilege, perhaps even more so than Romney, so he must be just as phoney.

I'm not primarily concerned with questions of what you call 'phoniness' here (let those who want to equate Obama's background with Romney's do their best), but with stupidity. Any candidate for the US Presidency who has not got the common sense to avoid saying in front of a large audience that he thinks 47% of the population are in effects bums and moochers is just not clever enough to be let anywhere near the White House. It wouldn't be safe for America or for the world.

Its as simple as that.

What about pitching up in the Middle East and pronouncing that Israel is more righteous than Palestine because it's wealthier?

[_Kishkumen]

In my mind, Daniel Peterson is a Mormon icon of exactly what has gone wrong with the Republican Party.

It is what has gone with the Republican Party that will result in the defeat of Mitt Romney in November.

What has gone wrong?

Identity politics that aim at one thing only: winning.

These people seem to be willing to say or do any kooky thing in order to win, regardless of its impact on the nation.

I believe that this is because the center-leaning economic trend of the Democratic Party has sent the Republicans on a rightward race to the extreme reaches of populist nut-job territory.

Romney has to say crazy crap to appeal to the lunatics who support him. When it comes to politics, DCP is one of the nuts. He may be a very intelligent fellow otherwise, but his posts on politics at Sic et Non reveal him to be an extremist in politics who gleefully paints Obama to be an anti-Christ.

It is vile and stupid, and it deserves to go down in flames.

[_cinepro]

Half a minute. Did DCP really write that of Obama? Obama is the one who despises 47% of the electorate?

If you're referring to Romney's comment at the fundraiser, you've either misunderstood it or deliberately misrepresented it.

The saddest thing for me about the Romney campaign is that they can't promote what I think would be the strongest selling point for Romney: his time spent as a Bishop and Stake President.

Because of his wealthy upbringing and adult life, and enviable hair, it's easy for him to get painted as a caricature, like some sort of heartless, brainless Paris Hilton who has never had to pour his own orange juice.

But anyone who knows a Bishop or Stake President personally knows how much time they spend talking with people in the ward and stake, and counseling them on many different sorts of issues. This is the equivalent of an unpaid full-time job as a quasi social-worker/ marriage and family counselor to people from all different walks of life.

Romney might be many things, but after 10-15 years of being a Bishop and SP, one thing he isn't is "out of touch" or unsympathetic to poor people or those who are struggling.

We might disagree on how best to help these people (and what the government's role in that "help" should be given our current economic situation), but Romney's views on the matter are not formed from ignorance or, dare I say, lack of "compassion".

[_Yoda]

Half a minute. Did DCP really write that of Obama? Obama is the one who despises 47% of the electorate?

If you're referring to Romney's comment at the fundraiser, you've either misunderstood it or deliberately misrepresented it.

The saddest thing for me about the Romney campaign is that they can't promote what I think would be the strongest selling point for Romney: his time spent as a Bishop and Stake President.

Because of his wealthy upbringing and adult life, and enviable hair, it's easy for him to get painted as a caricature, like some sort of heartless, brainless Paris Hilton who has never had to pour his own orange juice.

But anyone who knows a Bishop or Stake President personally knows how much time they spend talking with people in the ward and stake, and counseling them on many different sorts of issues. This is the equivalent of an unpaid full-time job as a quasi social-worker/ marriage and family counselor to people from all different walks of life.

Romney might be many things, but after 10-15 years of being a Bishop and SP, one thing he isn't is "out of touch" or unsympathetic to poor people or those who are struggling.

We might disagree on how best to help these people (and what the government's role in that "help" should be given our current economic situation), but Romney's views on the matter are not formed from ignorance or, dare I say, lack of "compassion".

+100!!!!!

[_Yoda]

If the churches just want to act like churches, I have no problem with their doing their own thing. If they want to act like employers, however, then they should be held to the same standards as any other employers, IMHO.

So you believe that ALL employers should have dictated to them what benefits they can and cannot offer their employees?

Why not leave that up to the employers, and the potential employees to decide? In other words, leave it up to the American people to decide what is appropriate or inappropriate in the way of benefits.

This is the kind of thing that contributes to the job crisis...companies being dictated to what benefits they are REQUIRED to offer.

If you choose to work for a small business or as a private contractor, you have the intelligence to walk into that situation with your eyes open. What happened to "buyer beware"? As a private contractor for my freelance website work, I know the company I am building a website for is not going to offer me full benefits. As a matter of fact, they are not going to offer me ANY benefits. I know that going in, and charge accordingly for my services.

If someone CHOOSES to work for a Catholic organization, they either have, or should have, a pretty good idea what the benefits for that organization are, depending on that company's ideology.

If you don't like the benefits offered to you by a specific company, DON'T WORK FOR THAT COMPANY. Find a company that provides the type of benefits that suits your needs. It's called working in a free market.

[_Chap]

Half a minute. Did DCP really write that of Obama? Obama is the one who despises 47% of the electorate?

If you're referring to Romney's comment at the fundraiser, you've either misunderstood it or deliberately misrepresented it.
...

This accusation from the mild-mannered cinepro surprises me.

Well, what was I referring to? One may, for instance, look at the whole video, now online at CBS news.

Near the end, at about 35 minutes, he answers a question about "How're we going to do it [i.e. convince people to vote Republican]?". The answer begins:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That, that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... [My job] is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

The man who made these remarks did not appear to think a great deal of the people he was talking about, did he? As you can see and hear for yourself, there is no 'saving context' for these remarks. They start where the quote above begins.

What's to misinterpret here?

[_Analytics]

...If someone CHOOSES to work for a Catholic organization, they either have, or should have, a pretty good idea what the benefits for that organization are, depending on that company's ideology.

If you don't like the benefits offered to you by a specific company, DON'T WORK FOR THAT COMPANY. Find a company that provides the type of benefits that suits your needs. It's called working in a free market.

The problem with this is that the way health insurance works is a free market isn't compatible with American values. Liberals think that Canada has the right idea and that basic healthcare ought to be a right all citizens enjoy, like the right of a K-12 education kids in America enjoy. Conservatives always wanted more choice involved, which is why until very recently, they liked the Romney-Care setup, with everybody being required to purchase insurance, and the insurance companies being required to accept everybody without underwriting.

If you go with the conservative idea and require everybody to be responsible and purchase insurance, you have to define what that means--what is the minimum amount of insurance everybody ought to have? Just as the law has a minimum required coverage for auto insurance, it needs to have a minimum required coverage for health insurance. It's about personal responsibility--not religious freedom.

[_Kishkumen]

If you're referring to Romney's comment at the fundraiser, you've either misunderstood it or deliberately misrepresented it.

Whatever Romney actually thinks, his statement was, in itself, problematic and inaccurate. He is the one who must bear the blame for saying what he said. Blaming everyone else for "misinterpreting" Romney is lame.