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.

 Ahtman wrote:
I also have heard that there are people outside the USA that have figured out a way to get on the internet, so it may not even be someone that is active in American politics, let alone an Obama supporter.

Right, but Obama is a foreigner, so it is probably one of his Muslim brothers...

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I also have heard that there are people outside the USA that have figured out a way to get on the internet, so it may not even be someone that is active in American politics, let alone an Obama supporter.

Right, but Obama is a foreigner, so it is probably one of his Muslim brothers...

Probably not. I've heard his brother doesn't like him all to much.

Edit: Seems he has a lot of brothers, not sure which one it was I heard that story about.

djones520 wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I also have heard that there are people outside the USA that have figured out a way to get on the internet, so it may not even be someone that is active in American politics, let alone an Obama supporter.

Right, but Obama is a foreigner, so it is probably one of his Muslim brothers...

Probably not. I've heard his brother doesn't like him all to much.

Edit: Seems he has a lot of brothers, not sure which one it was I heard that story about.

I was speaking in the large sense not his actual biological brothers...

 DIDM wrote:
he has a horse, that costs more to maintain than most people on Earth will never make in a year. $75 grand a year to raise a horse, the utter definition of arrogance. Vote for me, I promise to treat my horse better than you have ever been treated in your life.

Actually around where I live (the south ) there are tons of poor people who own horses. And they generally seem to take pretty good care of them too.

I would guess he was pulling that number from some article mentioning what Romney spends on his champion Olympic competition horse, not what the average horse-owner spends.

 GalacticDefender wrote:

 DIDM wrote:
he has a horse, that costs more to maintain than most people on Earth will never make in a year. $75 grand a year to raise a horse, the utter definition of arrogance. Vote for me, I promise to treat my horse better than you have ever been treated in your life.

Actually around where I live (the south ) there are tons of poor people who own horses. And they generally seem to take pretty good care of them too.

Uh, speaking as someone who lives in the South...

I'm calling bullcrap on this statement.

The people who actually have their own horses are far from being "poor".
They are generally people who have quite a lot of money to burn, and not only have their own horses--but have their own staff who take care of the horse, a professional rider for races, and all the things associated with these thoroughbred horses.

The people who you might associate with "poor people owning horses" actually do not. They are the people who take care of the horse, train it, and might ride it for the races.

Heck, even the people who own stables with multiple horses stabled there constantly are not "poor". They usually are pretty well-off.

 jordanis wrote:
...thats like working hard to get an A on a school project but because it isnt fair to the people who didnt get an A (because they likely didnt work as hard) everyone gets a C...whats the point of that?

Alternatively, why are people who need to work hard in order to earn A's allowed to earn A's at all? If you need to put effort into something in order to produce good results, then you probably aren't deserving of any kind of recognition because its really just a nice little pat on the head.

Obviously that's condescending, but it nicely illustrates why the grading analogy doesn't work in your favor.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 DIDM wrote:
he has a horse, that costs more to maintain than most people on Earth will never make in a year. $75 grand a year to raise a horse, the utter definition of arrogance. Vote for me, I promise to treat my horse better than you have ever been treated in your life.

As someone who knows a gak ton of people who own horses, and has looked at keeping a mare my myself, I'd like to congratulate you on looking like an utter horse's ass right here.

I get it. You don't like Romney, but present valid reasons instead of talking out your ass.

I think the point was exactly what you've made, but taken differently. The price you or the people that you know may pay to raise a horse may well be well below what DIDM stated, which is exactly why (if romney pays $75000 per annum to look after Rafalca (the horse)) it is extravagant.

jordanis wrote:America used to respect people who worked hard to get money, thats what is missing now.

Actually, I think it has more to do with the fact that once the de-regulation kicked in, those people with money started rigging the game so that nobody else could ever be in a position to compete with them, and used that as a substitute for hard work.

So... again... why Romney's wealth an issue?

At least he earned it...

Kerry married his wealth and I don't remember anyone dinging his wealth.

Back to the OP: Its probably a prank or bluff...

 azazel the cat wrote:

jordanis wrote:America used to respect people who worked hard to get money, thats what is missing now.

Actually, I think it has more to do with the fact that once the de-regulation kicked in, those people with money started rigging the game so that nobody else could ever be in a position to compete with them, and used that as a substitute for hard work.

Working hard to get money isnt the issue.

Being a douche is.

CT GAMER wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

jordanis wrote:America used to respect people who worked hard to get money, thats what is missing now.

Actually, I think it has more to do with the fact that once the de-regulation kicked in, those people with money started rigging the game so that nobody else could ever be in a position to compete with them, and used that as a substitute for hard work.

Working hard to get money isnt the issue.

Being a douche is.

I thought that was what I said.

 whembly wrote:
So... again... why Romney's wealth an issue?

At least he earned it...

Kerry married his wealth and I don't remember anyone dinging his wealth.

Back to the OP: Its probably a prank or bluff...

I thought I remembered a few dings against his wealth. However, the
strength of John Kerry's campaign leaned on his military service and
his stance against the war. Once Swiftboats cut that out, he was just
another politician.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 GalacticDefender wrote:

 DIDM wrote:
he has a horse, that costs more to maintain than most people on Earth will never make in a year. $75 grand a year to raise a horse, the utter definition of arrogance. Vote for me, I promise to treat my horse better than you have ever been treated in your life.

Actually around where I live (the south ) there are tons of poor people who own horses. And they generally seem to take pretty good care of them too.

Uh, speaking as someone who lives in the South...

I'm calling bullcrap on this statement.

The people who actually have their own horses are far from being "poor".
They are generally people who have quite a lot of money to burn, and not only have their own horses--but have their own staff who take care of the horse, a professional rider for races, and all the things associated with these thoroughbred horses.

The people who you might associate with "poor people owning horses" actually do not. They are the people who take care of the horse, train it, and might ride it for the races.

Heck, even the people who own stables with multiple horses stabled there constantly are not "poor". They usually are pretty well-off.

I know several people personally who aren't exactly dirt poor, but definitely don't make anywhere even close to 75,000 a year, who own horses. (well generally 1 horse) So my statement was most definitely not "bull crap".

 malfred wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... again... why Romney's wealth an issue?

At least he earned it...

Kerry married his wealth and I don't remember anyone dinging his wealth.

Back to the OP: Its probably a prank or bluff...

I thought I remembered a few dings against his wealth. However, the
strength of John Kerry's campaign leaned on his military service and
his stance against the war. Once Swiftboats cut that out, he was just
another politician.

ya...the switfboat did a number on him.

I didn't like him, but wasn't enthused with the switfboat folks. I know they're citizens with rights, but shouldn't service in the military be like being in "The Fight Club"? What are the rules???

It's the same problem I have with the Navy Seal book that's catching storm.

GalacticDefender wrote:I know several people personally who aren't exactly dirt poor, but definitely don't make anywhere even close to 75,000 a year, who own horses. (well generally 1 horse) So my statement was most definitely not "bull crap".

If you say so.

Your example is still hyperbolic at best, outright garbage at worst.

The areas where you tend to have individuals with horses of their own(which are NOT used for anything more than show or as an avenue of income through breeding or supplementing an existing substantial income) are usually areas where farming is still a viable source of income and horses have a place in how they make their living.

But when we're talking about Romney and his show horse, we're not talking about that. We're talking about a show horse, an animal which is kept in peak physical condition and appearances so as to make the owner back money through the various shows and potential money to be had through breeding.

 Kanluwen wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:I know several people personally who aren't exactly dirt poor, but definitely don't make anywhere even close to 75,000 a year, who own horses. (well generally 1 horse) So my statement was most definitely not "bull crap".

If you say so.

Your example is still hyperbolic at best, outright garbage at worst.

The areas where you tend to have individuals with horses of their own(which are NOT used for anything more than show or as an avenue of income through breeding or supplementing an existing substantial income) are usually areas where farming is still a viable source of income and horses have a place in how they make their living.

But when we're talking about Romney and his show horse, we're not talking about that. We're talking about a show horse, an animal which is kept in peak physical condition and appearances so as to make the owner back money through the various shows and potential money to be had through breeding.

Kan... why are you so hung up on Romeny's horses?

And for the record, I know some folks who own horses and they're not rich or "well off" by any stretch. Granted, it's not the same as Romney's horse as its a show horse.

It's the difference of having a Ford Mustang vs a Bentley... who cares?

I just think there are better thing to criticize Romney on than his wealth/horses. Like, how's he gonna deregulate everything and O.M.G. we're going to be drinking raw sewage and breathing coal infused air! QUICK, let's move to Canada! I hear they have a strategic Maple Syrup reserve!

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:I know several people personally who aren't exactly dirt poor, but definitely don't make anywhere even close to 75,000 a year, who own horses. (well generally 1 horse) So my statement was most definitely not "bull crap".

If you say so.

Your example is still hyperbolic at best, outright garbage at worst.

The areas where you tend to have individuals with horses of their own(which are NOT used for anything more than show or as an avenue of income through breeding or supplementing an existing substantial income) are usually areas where farming is still a viable source of income and horses have a place in how they make their living.

But when we're talking about Romney and his show horse, we're not talking about that. We're talking about a show horse, an animal which is kept in peak physical condition and appearances so as to make the owner back money through the various shows and potential money to be had through breeding.

Kan... why are you so hung up on Romeny's horses?

I'm not?
I'm calling the fact that the statement is hyperbolic, misinformed, or just plain wrong.

And quite frankly, the reason which it was being discussed here is that Romney is dumping $75k into a show/event horse which did rather poorly.
The man is discussing how he has an "eye for business" and a "well-thought out plan of how to manage the country and its funds"...yet he's dumped $75,000 into a show/event horse which did rather poorly.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:I know several people personally who aren't exactly dirt poor, but definitely don't make anywhere even close to 75,000 a year, who own horses. (well generally 1 horse) So my statement was most definitely not "bull crap".

If you say so.

Your example is still hyperbolic at best, outright garbage at worst.

The areas where you tend to have individuals with horses of their own(which are NOT used for anything more than show or as an avenue of income through breeding or supplementing an existing substantial income) are usually areas where farming is still a viable source of income and horses have a place in how they make their living.

But when we're talking about Romney and his show horse, we're not talking about that. We're talking about a show horse, an animal which is kept in peak physical condition and appearances so as to make the owner back money through the various shows and potential money to be had through breeding.

Kan... why are you so hung up on Romeny's horses?

I'm not?
I'm calling the fact that the statement is hyperbolic, misinformed, or just plain wrong.

And quite frankly, the reason which it was being discussed here is that Romney is dumping $75k into a show/event horse which did rather poorly.
The man is discussing how he has an "eye for business" and a "well-thought out plan of how to manage the country and its funds"...yet he's dumped $75,000 into a show/event horse which did rather poorly.

What, you think he'll put money into a military pageant or something?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:I know several people personally who aren't exactly dirt poor, but definitely don't make anywhere even close to 75,000 a year, who own horses. (well generally 1 horse) So my statement was most definitely not "bull crap".

If you say so.

Your example is still hyperbolic at best, outright garbage at worst.

The areas where you tend to have individuals with horses of their own(which are NOT used for anything more than show or as an avenue of income through breeding or supplementing an existing substantial income) are usually areas where farming is still a viable source of income and horses have a place in how they make their living.

But when we're talking about Romney and his show horse, we're not talking about that. We're talking about a show horse, an animal which is kept in peak physical condition and appearances so as to make the owner back money through the various shows and potential money to be had through breeding.

Kan... why are you so hung up on Romeny's horses?

I'm not?
I'm calling the fact that the statement is hyperbolic, misinformed, or just plain wrong.

Okay... fair enough...

And quite frankly, the reason which it was being discussed here is that Romney is dumping $75k into a show/event horse which did rather poorly.
The man is discussing how he has an "eye for business" and a "well-thought out plan of how to manage the country and its funds"...yet he's dumped $75,000 into a show/event horse which did rather poorly.

 AustonT wrote:
Go on...

Umm, dude, the hacker is blackmailing Romney. He wants money. It's right there in the article. I mean, it's bitcoins so it's money for stupid people, but it's a concrete, black and white motive given right there in the article.

And yet you come into the thread going 'what possible reason could there be for this other than being part of the Obama camp?' I mean, come on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jordanis wrote:
What happened to the America that celebrated wealth and prosperity?

It continues to exist in same part of your brain that its always existed in.

Over here in reality America has had a long and bloody history of combating the power of the very rich.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jordanis wrote:
My research shows that only 6 to 8000 jobs were lost while Romney was at Bain, while that very same company helped to create 88000 jobs alone at Staples, a 9% loss of all the jobs created is acceptable: people and companies make bad investments, Bain was an Investor, they supplied money for companies to get going (thats what i understand an Investor to be at least) the Dividend that was asked in return would have made some businesses fail because the company was bound to fail anyway, whether or not they had to pay that dividend to Bain.

Your research consists of reading right wing pundits repeating press releases given to them by the Romney campaign. I know this because it's pretty well established that we do not know the jobs records at various ogranisation Bain took control of, only the ones that the Romney campaign decided to tell us about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jordanis wrote:
no, america worships celebrities and athletes, why should the people who worked hard to earn large sums of money be punished, thats like working hard to get an A on a school project but because it isnt fair to the people who didnt get an A (because they likely didnt work as hard) everyone gets a C...whats the point of that? America used to respect people who worked hard to get money, thats what is missing now.

Yeah, which is why no-one is sending their kids to study finance, law or medicine anymore. Uh huh. Yep. Totally sensible argument you're making here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
For some reason I am reminded of an interview with Michael Douglas where he talks about the number of people that didn't realize that Gordon Gecko was the bad guy.

Weirdly enough, having watched the sequel it appears Douglas and Oliver Stone forgot that somewhere along the way as well.

 whembly wrote:
So... again... why Romney's wealth an issue?

At least he earned it...

Kerry married his wealth and I don't remember anyone dinging his wealth.

The difference is that Kerry wasn't running on the claim that his wealth would make him a good president. It was just something he happened to be close to (since the money isn't technically his). Romney, on the other hand, IS running on his business experience, which means that it's entirely fair to look at what he's done in that area. And, unfortunately, the answer seems to be that he's just another parasite on society who hides his profits in foreign bank accounts while demanding even more tax cuts for himself.

 whembly wrote:
So... again... why Romney's wealth an issue?

At least he earned it...

That's debatable. He started out with money, and with moneyed contacts, and used those to make more money in unsavory ways. One could make an argument either way.

And, frankly, there were so many, many things wrong with John Kerry that they just didn't NEED to get in to his wealth.

If you run on "I am a rich business man, and I will run the country like a CEO", then looking at your money is perfectly valid.

If you run on anything else other than "look at me, I am rich" then focusing on your money would be a distraction.

Kerry went down hill when he started addressing Swiftboat and got personnel with it. I don't blame him due to his integerty was called into check for the awards he recieved. Before someone says anything. The circumstances that he recieved those awards do not hold water by todays standard.

Its a crap load of money to train a Dressage horse. Wonder who in his family was raised around those types of horses. His wife?

 whembly wrote:
ya...the switfboat did a number on him.

I didn't like him, but wasn't enthused with the switfboat folks. I know they're citizens with rights, but shouldn't service in the military be like being in "The Fight Club"? What are the rules???

It's the same problem I have with the Navy Seal book that's catching storm.

Well, the problem with the Swiftboat campaign, fundamentally, was that it was a pack of lies. I mean, there's really no other way to put it. Some swiftboat veterans who were pissed off at Kerry's post-Vietnam anti-war activities started a rumour mill among themselves, and the Bush campaign took them and ran with it. The problem being that the stories they told were not verified by the soliders who had actual direct experience of the events in question.

On the other hand, the idea that 'look I did heroic stuff in war vote for me' is a pretty flimsy campaign anyway, so as much as I hate the lies in the Swiftboat campaign, Kerry chose to build his campaign around his war record instead of say, a series of policy initiatives that he would attempt to put in place as President, and so really that opens the door to criticism of his military career.


The same thing kind of holds true with Romney. All the stories about how many cars Romneys wife has, or how much his horse costs in care each year are basically just nonsense. But then Romney is trying to run on the nonsensical platform of 'I successfully ran a private equity firm therefore I know what public policy will help America' so maybe again it's all fair. Nonsense on one side justifies nonsense on the other?

 Melissia wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... again... why Romney's wealth an issue?

At least he earned it...

That's debatable. He started out with money, and with moneyed contacts, and used those to make more money in unsavory ways. One could make an argument either way.

That's true... I can see that. If you want to look at his business experience, that's fair game.

And, frankly, there were so many, many things wrong with John Kerry that they just didn't NEED to get in to his wealth.

Yup... like his senatorial record for one...

 Jihadin wrote:
Kerry went down hill when he started addressing Swiftboat and got personnel with it. I don't blame him due to his integerty was called into check for the awards he recieved. Before someone says anything. The circumstances that he recieved those awards do not hold water by todays standard.

To give credit where credit is due - the Bush campaign ran the Swiftboat scam near perfectly. The ads were very convincing, and the way in which they framed the conversation in the following debate managed to look like there was genuine doubt in the issue.

Whereas the Kerry campaign responded pretty terribly, thinking moral outrage and rebuttal was a good enough counter. They should have spent a couple of days disproving the swiftboat claims and then just assumed victory and moved the conversation onto the lies of the Bush campaign. They didn't, because as we all know now, the Kerry campaign was really, really bad at their jobs.

 d-usa wrote:
If you run on "I am a rich business man, and I will run the country like a CEO", then looking at your money is perfectly valid.

If you run on anything else other than "look at me, I am rich" then focusing on your money would be a distraction.

Yeah... fair enough.

There are folks who are advocating that his successes (unsavory or not) could be an asset in the Whitehouse and its something worth discussing/debating over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Kerry went down hill when he started addressing Swiftboat and got personnel with it. I don't blame him due to his integerty was called into check for the awards he recieved. Before someone says anything. The circumstances that he recieved those awards do not hold water by todays standard.

To give credit where credit is due - the Bush campaign ran the Swiftboat scam near perfectly. The ads were very convincing, and the way in which they framed the conversation in the following debate managed to look like there was genuine doubt in the issue.

Whereas the Kerry campaign responded pretty terribly, thinking moral outrage and rebuttal was a good enough counter. They should have spent a couple of days disproving the swiftboat claims and then just assumed victory and moved the conversation onto the lies of the Bush campaign. They didn't, because as we all know now, the Kerry campaign was really, really bad at their jobs.

Yeah, I can see that.

But from what I remember, he was hurt more by his actions at the protests (where he threw his medals) than the actual swiftboating stuff. When confronted, he did really poorly in his response.

Also remember. Kerry threw his awards into the water near the memorial in DC because he was not proud for what he had done during the Vietnam War.. His own words that came back and haunted him. He just spent to much time towards the end dealing with Swiftboat.