• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Romney on 47%: "I was completely wrong."

ImTheCaptain said:
I mean, A) religion isn't charity and B) his religion requires most of it.

wgaf anyway, no one could possible argue the guy is Mother Theresa. It's not like he's building libraries or establishing scholarships for people in the Romney name, which would actually be impressive IMO.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to disparage Mitt with the Mother Teresa comparison? I don't think Mitt is that bad.
 
RJKarl said:
They absolutely do if they are running for office. They know it will come up as an issue.

There's no cognitive dissonance. One is for his own good. the other harms millions of people (mostly children).
Click to expand...

Rhetoric. When we ended 'welfare as we know it' the last time, were millions of people, mostly children, harmed? Jesus the Christ, RJ. Where do you get this shit?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
I mean, A) religion isn't charity and B) his religion requires most of it.

wgaf anyway, no one could possible argue the guy is Mother Theresa. It's not like he's building libraries or establishing scholarships for people in the Romney name, which would actually be impressive IMO.
Click to expand...

this.

Doesn't the Mormon church own malls and other lucrative for-profit enterprises? Not really sure how that is empathetic charity.

His religion, one which is based on fear of hell and guilt for 'sins,' requires him to give that money. Citing it as some kind of proof he has sympathy for the needy - while juxtaposed against his fortune earned by maximizing profits for a few already wealthy investors through, at the very least, suppressing wages on labor and in some cases squeezing it out altogether - is quite a stretch.

Based on that criteria, Jerry Sandusky was empathetic to the needy. Sure he fucked a few needy kids, but a lot got to play football. :noidea:
 
Last edited:
Not rhetoric, it's his policies. If his tax plan is implemented dramatic cuts to food stamps, Pell Grants and other programs.

Both he and Ryan believe in the insane Rand dogma of "makers and takers".

Where I get it? Two places- arithmetic and their policies....well at least until Romney lies and changes his so called stances again.

The amount of blatant lies Romney and Ryan have told shows a tremendous whole in each of their moral compasses. Their willingness to tell such basic and obvious lies as a policy of their campaign in virtually unprecedented.
 
WakeandBake said:
this.

Doesn't the Mormon church own malls and other lucrative for-profit enterprises? Not really sure how that is empathetic charity.

His religion, one which is based on fear of hell and guilt for 'sins,' requires him to give that money. Citing it as some kind of proof he has sympathy for the needy - while juxtaposed against his fortune earned by maximizing profits for a few already wealthy investors through, at the very least, suppressing wages on labor and in some cases squeezing it out altogether - is quite a stretch.

Based on that criteria, Jerry Sandusky was empathetic to the needy. Sure he fucked a few needy kids, but a lot more got to play football. :noidea:
Click to expand...

So I'm clear, you ignore the fact he's given to non-church charities (which we've established in other threads) while stating he gives because he thinks he's going to burn in hell, then you wrap it in some anti-capitalist sentiments before loosely implying Sandusky did more good than harm, and you conclude I'm the one stretching?
 
beatrix said:
So I'm clear, you ignore the fact he's given to non-church charities (which we've established in other threads) while stating he gives because he thinks he's going to burn in hell, then you wrap it in some anti-capitalist sentiments before loosely implying Sandusky did more good than harm, and you conclude I'm the one stretching?
Click to expand...

you don't read well
 
beatrix said:
So I'm clear, you ignore the fact he's given to non-church charities (which we've established in other threads) while stating he gives because he thinks he's going to burn in hell, then you wrap it in some anti-capitalist sentiments before loosely implying Sandusky did more good than harm, and you conclude I'm the one stretching?
Click to expand...

Back to the origins of the thread. What does how much Romney gives in charity have to do with his statement below about the 47%? Answer: none. And how does someone say this with such certainty, and all of a sudden say they were completely wrong? Does Romney all of a sudden think that all those he disparaged now are taking personal responsibility and caring for their lives? The man has no integrity.

"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. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
 
bobknightfan said:
Would you give us a breakdown of Romney's charitable deductions for the past 5 or 6 years?
Click to expand...

No. I'm too much of a slacker to googles that shit. But I'm 100% confident the list is significant *and* includes more than the Mormon church.
 
Once you give to a charity, and then boast that you gave to that charity more than someone else, it's no longer charity, it's self-serving and reminds me of the "my best friend growing up was black so I can say the n-word argument."
 
From Mitt's 2010 return, he had nearly $3 million in charitable contributions. Approximately $1.5 million was cash contributions to the Mormon Church and approximately $1.5 million was stock contributions to a foundation called the Tyler Foundation. The Tyler Foundation appears to be the Romney's family foundation. In 2010, the foundation made a $145,000 grant to the Mormon Church and the following other grants (I have no idea what some of these organizations do, but they are all public charities):

The Belmont Hill School ($5,000)
Best Friends Foundation ($15,000)
Boys and Girls Club Of Boston ($10,000)
Brigham Young University ($25,000)
Center For Treatment of Pediatric MS ($75,000)
City Year ($5,000)
Dana Farber Cancer Institute ($10,000)
Dana Farber Pan Mass Challenge ($20,000)
Deseret International ($25,000)
Friends Of The Belmont Council ($20,000)
George W. Bush Library ($100,000)
Harvard Business School ($10,000)
Camp High Hopes ($5,000)
Homes For Our Troops ($20,000)
Inner-City Scholarship Fund ($10,000)
Joey Fund For Cystic Fybrosis ($20,000)
MMOFRA Trom Foundation ($30,000)
MS Cure ($10,000)
Operation Kids ($65,000)
Right To Play ($10,000)
US Equestrian Team Foundation ($10,000)
Wright Museum ($25,000)

I since he didn't deduct all of his contributions in 2011, without really looking through the return, I can't tell how much went to the Mormon Church and how much went to the Tyler Foundation, but those are the only two contributions shown. The Tyler Foundation's Form 990-PF should be available online for 2009 and 2008. Someone else can look and see what grants were made by the foundation in prior years.

This whole thing is stupid. I am a complete partisan hack for the Dems, but for goodness sake, Mitt gives plenty to charity and regardless of your personal views on the Mormon Church, it is a charity that does a lot of good. Most very large charities have investments in things you think they probably shouldn't (shopping malls or whatever) and they pay tax on the income derived from such businesses.

The fact that Mitt gives a ton of money to charity is completely irrelevant to the 47% comment and the fact that his position on most issues would be terrible for the poor.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
Why haven't those poor people just asked their parents for a loan?
Click to expand...

Dude, poor people don't have parents. They're known as babymomma's supplemental income receiver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top