Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.

Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.

Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.

Of course she understands the plight of working women. She employs several to clean her houses.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.

Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.

That's my point, I know working families with one parent who not only keep horses but actively compete with them. This is a dumb arse straw man to make at the Romney clan when you can actually just come out and say "Mrs. Romney is an extremely wealthy woman and has never walked a day in the shoes of working class Americans" but yeah go with the horse thing.

Ok, You dont get it. Its meant to be an example.
How about the fact that she can put several boys through college when many cannot put one.
the point is that many working women are not able to go on a stroll with their horse rather then not work

I've edited or deleted a few posts which were off topic or feeding a troll. -Mannahnin

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Ann Romney wrote:“It was not just the campaign’s fault,” she said of his defeat. “I believe it was the media’s fault as well, is that he was not giving — being given a fair shake, that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was,” she said.

Asked why that was, she responded: “I’m happy to blame the media.”

She seems like the only woman I would punch without cause.

Punch a woman?! Why you're no gentleman you, you...jellyfish!

Relapse wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Ann Romney wrote:“It was not just the campaign’s fault,” she said of his defeat. “I believe it was the media’s fault as well, is that he was not giving — being given a fair shake, that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was,” she said.

Asked why that was, she responded: “I’m happy to blame the media.”

She seems like the only woman I would punch without cause.

Punch a woman?! Why you're no gentleman you, you...jellyfish!

Hark! I am died!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.

Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.

Why can she not understand it?

Does someone have to experience something to sympathize, understand, or otherwise speak intelligently on the matter? Hardly. If that were the case, then this forum would be a dead wasteland.

Someone can sympathize yes, but truly understanding means living it.

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.

Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.

Why can she not understand it?

Does someone have to experience something to sympathize, understand, or otherwise speak intelligently on the matter?

Considering how many times certain people tell others to shut up based on the flag next to their name, you would think so.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Someone can sympathize yes, but truly understanding means living it.

I think that's a flawed assumption on your part, one of many you've made in this line of reasoning.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I've edited or deleted a few posts which were off topic or feeding a troll. -Mannahnin

I like you did this, while leaving the post of the guy who said he wanted to punch a woman with MS for no cause.

 djones520 wrote:
I like you did this, while leaving the post of the guy who said he wanted to punch a woman with MS for no cause.

Make the case that wanting to punch women without cause is a conservative point of view if you want to see that particular comment removed.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Someone can sympathize yes, but truly understanding means living it.

I think that's a flawed assumption on your part, one of many you've made in this line of reasoning.

to follow this up...

I mean heck let's go through the thought process here.

First you say she (Ann Romney) can't possibly understand the plight of the working mother because she owns a horse. This assumes that working mothers can't own horses, they do. While Mrs. Romney's therapy horse is undoubtedly a well bred and well trained animal, more so then many Americans would own (you pay for the extra training when you have so little muscle control you can barely support yourself in the saddle) the basic fact of the matter is that Americans of all income levels and domestic situations own horses.

Next you say Mrs. Romney can't understand because she's put multiple children through college, I know working mothers personally who have done just that, probably with a bit more government help then the Romneys but that's not exactly surprising is it?

Next you have to live something to understand it, well there's a certain amount of truth to it, through living things we might be able to comprehend them better, but that's another assumption on our part. People make careers out of empathy and understanding how to help those in need, even though I doubt even half of those people have lived those circumstances.

So now you consider that Ann Romney has been extensively involved with programs to help assist inner city youth, working directly with those who need help and it wouldn't be unreasonable to infer that she might know what she's talking about.

I'm not a fan of the Romneys by any extent but you're talking out your gakhole.

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I like you did this, while leaving the post of the guy who said he wanted to punch a woman with MS for no cause.

Make the case that wanting to punch women without cause is a conservative point of view if you want to see that particular comment removed.

Have you guys tried blaming the victim?

 d-usa wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I like you did this, while leaving the post of the guy who said he wanted to punch a woman with MS for no cause.

Make the case that wanting to punch women without cause is a conservative point of view if you want to see that particular comment removed.

Have you guys tried blaming the victim?

I'd say in this case, the victim is the whole board. I'll stop here though before I become the subject of more "moderation". It's been a while since I've had a post deleted...

I said blaming the victim, not playing the victim.

 d-usa wrote:
I said blaming the victim, not playing the victim.

The victims in this whole debacle were the non-insane Republican base, who got exactly zero candidates who could actually represent them.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Someone can sympathize yes, but truly understanding means living it.

I think that's a flawed assumption on your part, one of many you've made in this line of reasoning.

to follow this up...

I mean heck let's go through the thought process here.

First you say she (Ann Romney) can't possibly understand the plight of the working mother because she owns a horse. This assumes that working mothers can't own horses, they do. While Mrs. Romney's therapy horse is undoubtedly a well bred and well trained animal, more so then many Americans would own (you pay for the extra training when you have so little muscle control you can barely support yourself in the saddle) the basic fact of the matter is that Americans of all income levels and domestic situations own horses.

Next you say Mrs. Romney can't understand because she's put multiple children through college, I know working mothers personally who have done just that, probably with a bit more government help then the Romneys but that's not exactly surprising is it?

Next you have to live something to understand it, well there's a certain amount of truth to it, through living things we might be able to comprehend them better, but that's another assumption on our part. People make careers out of empathy and understanding how to help those in need, even though I doubt even half of those people have lived those circumstances.

So now you consider that Ann Romney has been extensively involved with programs to help assist inner city youth, working directly with those who need help and it wouldn't be unreasonable to infer that she might know what she's talking about.

I'm not a fan of the Romneys by any extent but you're talking out your gakhole.

I'd like to add a bit to those comments to point out that Mitt Romney served as a Bishop. Anyone that knows a Bishop in the LDS church can tell you it is a heavy responsibility, and quite often end up helping families in crisis. These people that are helped are not part of the faceless masses, but people well known to the Bishop and his family. Quite often, the wife of the Bishop will also help these families and find herself an intimate with them.
The belief that the Romney's live in a vacumn, not understanding the problems people face was one of the hugest myths of the campaign, played off some remarks taken out of context or poorly worded.

I think that Mr. Romney might have been more successful in swatting away the wealth type arguments if he had said yes, "the president and I are both millionaires" and stuck to that message consistently.

I think the real problem his campaign, actually, came from Frazzled. As he said , "I believe he believed the 47% comment". I also believe that he really believes that - otherwise he wouldn't have said it, and he wouldn't be describing it now as "speaking too freely". I think that's an apt way of putting it as the mask truly slipped for a moment.

I don't think that anyone, of either party, should be president when they believe 47% of the country "believes they are victims" and because they are poor, they don't have "personal responsibility or care about their lives". I don't think the income tax is an arbiter of the Americans the President is supposed to care about.

The fact that he still doesn't see it makes me think that indeed, we dodged one here.


Also, in an ideal world, after you lose the election, you go the eff away for at least 3 years, bro. Go show some of the class George W. Bush showed. Don't be Cheney.

 Ouze wrote:
Go show some of the class George W. Bush showed. Don't be Cheney.

Another thing that comes up sometimes is the "would you have a beer with him" factor. I don't agree with quite a few things that Bush did, but I think he would be a nice guy to hang out with and to have a conversation with. Clinton seems like he would be a hoot, and I think I could spend an afternoon talking to Obama. But I just don't see anything I would talk to Romney about, or Cheney.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Go show some of the class George W. Bush showed. Don't be Cheney.

Another thing that comes up sometimes is the "would you have a beer with him" factor. I don't agree with quite a few things that Bush did, but I think he would be a nice guy to hang out with and to have a conversation with. Clinton seems like he would be a hoot, and I think I could spend an afternoon talking to Obama. But I just don't see anything I would talk to Romney about, or Cheney.

Cheney shot a guy, and got that guy to apologize, and you don't think he'd be fun to hang out with?

Man, I'd love to spend a day with a guy like that.

I'd love to have a beer with Cheney, try to get all the dirt on the various evils he's perpetrated throughout the world and get myself an Exec position at Halliburton.

 djones520 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I've edited or deleted a few posts which were off topic or feeding a troll. -Mannahnin

I like you did this, while leaving the post of the guy who said he wanted to punch a woman with MS for no cause.

That's a reasonable point of concern, although it would normally be more productive to express that via a yellow triangle on the post in question. It's entirely possible for moderators to overlook things, and we do make some mistakes.

That being said, it does seem that that particular post did not draw any flames, and instead served only to demean the guy who posted it. Sometimes a reasonable approach is to give someone enough rope to hang himself.

To be honest, I never thought he had a chance. I think people knew it too. From the start, it felt like no one wanted to even try to to run. The entire primary was full of second string and unknown people. All the quality options just stayed out.

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I like you did this, while leaving the post of the guy who said he wanted to punch a woman with MS for no cause.

Make the case that wanting to punch women without cause is a conservative point of view if you want to see that particular comment removed.

You're still on the forum. And I deleted more posts in this thread from people with whom you usually disagree than from folks on your side of the ideological spectrum.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.

Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.

That's my point, I know working families with one parent who not only keep horses but actively compete with them. This is a dumb arse straw man to make at the Romney clan when you can actually just come out and say "Mrs. Romney is an extremely wealthy woman and has never walked a day in the shoes of working class Americans" but yeah go with the horse thing.

Ann Romney doesn't just "own a horse." This isn't a horse to ride around on a nice day or compete in hunter-jumper competitions after practicing really really hard, this isn't an off-track thoroughbred. This is a dressage horse. This is a horse valued at $500,000 which competes in the Olympics. She's not even the full owner, she shares ownership, as in common with high end animals like that. This isn't a pleasure horse, this is a top of the line, ultra expensive horse involved in an insanely expensive and "upper crust" sport. This is a horse which the Romney's claimed a 70,000 tax deduction for.

To say "She has a horse" is waaaay oversimplifying it. I know a couple of horse owning ladies, and they are hardworking, barn mucking, blood sweat and tears dedicated, beat-up pickup driving horse owners. Ann has nothing at all in common with them.

I got a buddy who owns a couple horses. He showels up the horse crap himself though, so I let his horse owner elite status slide.

Someone needs a WEEEHMbulence.

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.

Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.

Why can she not understand it?

Does someone have to experience something to sympathize, understand, or otherwise speak intelligently on the matter?

Considering how many times certain people tell others to shut up based on the flag next to their name, you would think so.

This was beautiful, 10/10 would read again. Exalted to the fullest extent of a the papacy.