President Obama's Powerful Closing Remarks, 10-16-2012

It's always funny when extreme leftists try to enlist Elvis on their side in the political debate. From a psychological point of view it's because they can't imagine someone they respect having a different political opinion to theirs. The accompanying truth is sad - that they are not able to respect someone with a different political viewpoint to theirs. Hence the suggestion earlier in the thread that only Democrats care about their country. There's that blind hatred showing itself again.

I don't appreciate being called a radical just because I vote Democrat.

I don't appreciate when it's suggested that the President is not every American's President, because he is.

I don't appreciate when people imply that I'm not a patriot.

And I don't appreciate when Elvis's mercurial and fascinating views are not thoroughly investigated by fans. It's part of who he was, and if he was complex in that way, and said one thing in early 1970, another in late '70, and nothing in'72 (not to mention what he said EARLIER), that's part of the story, and if you don't want to look at it, you're wearing blinders. It's part of his depth and complexity as a man and artist.

I don't "claim" him, but I know enough that the Doc is probably right about this. Although we cannot really speculate beyond 1977. Elvis called Carter, Elvis called ON Nixon. Elvis endorsed Stevenson . . . Elvis sang protest songs. Elvis said he was just an entertainer.

It's something to think about. If you dare.

rjm

Unfortunately this election all boils down to Ohio.

Unfortunately this election all boils down to Ohio.

And we KNOW Elivis didn't give a rip about Ohio! LOL!

Or maybe we'd not have lost the Pied Piper film!

It's late. I'm now on a Kindle, and just babbling.

Good night all. Dems and Repubs alike. Sweet dreams.

As Colbert said, if you haven't made up your mind by now: FLIP A (GOLDANG) COIN!

rjm

Last edited by rjm on Thu Oct 18, 2012 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unfortunately this election all boils down to Ohio.

And we KNOW Elivis didn't give a rip about Ohio! LOL!

Or maybe we'd not have lost the Pied Piper film!

It's late. I'm now on a Kindle, and just babbling.

Good nifgt all. Dems and Repubs alike. Sweet dreams.

As Colbert said, if you haven't made up your mind by now: FLIP A (GOLDANG) COIN!

rjm

I think Elvis liked the Cleveland Browns.

I don't appreciate being called a radical just because I vote Democrat.

You're not a radical just because you vote Democrat, you're a radical (along with many others on this forum) because you're an indoctrinated liberal who votes Democrat. Now you know.

("indoctrinated"... no pun intended, rjm)

I don't appreciate being called a radical just because I vote Democrat.

You're not a radical just because you vote Democrat, you're a radical (along with many others on this forum) because you're an indoctrinated liberal who votes Democrat. Now you know.

("indoctrinated"... no pun intended, rjm)

'Liberal' in your very shallow estimation, also meaning 'pot smoking hippies' that should go and 'occupy toilet seats'. Correct? Let me ask you, if you having nothing to prove and find yourself above the liberals and so-called hippies, why even respond? After all you're above that, right? What's the point in arguing?

rjm, I appreciated your good wishes to people of both persuasions. Thank you.

I don't appreciate being called a radical just because I vote Democrat.

You're not a radical just because you vote Democrat, you're a radical (along with many others on this forum) because you're an indoctrinated liberal who votes Democrat. Now you know.

("indoctrinated"... no pun intended, rjm)

As opposed to an indoctrinated conservative who votes Republican?

It is VERY noticeable how not one of the quite vocal, conservative-minded members of this forum is able to acknowledge that Elvis Presley and his family were, without question, among the "47%" that the Republican challenger so denigrated at that private fundraiser for rich constituents.

And that the governmental policies that helped the Presley family through the hard times led to Elvis completing a high school education (a first in his family) and getting a full-time job right out of high school.

Food for thought.

Am I the only one here is losing track of why these threads exist? I'm not saying they should be removed or anything, but those who vote Obama aren't going to be persuaded by those on here who vote Romney, and vice versa. Isn't the arguing all getting a bit pointless now?

Am I the only one here is losing track of why these threads exist? I'm not saying they should be removed or anything, but those who vote Obama aren't going to be persuaded by those on here who vote Romney, and vice versa. Isn't the arguing all getting a bit pointless now?

The Presley connection (and related hypocrisy of some) is quite relevant.

It is VERY noticeable how not one of the quite vocal, conservative-minded members of this forum is able to acknowledge that Elvis Presley and his family were, without question, among the "47%" that the Republican challenger so denigrated at that private fundraiser for rich constituents.

And that the governmental policies that helped the Presley family through the hard times led to Elvis completing a high school education (a first in his family) and getting a full-time job right out of high school.

+1

Big time.

To the people that actually pay attention it's called 'opportunity', to those that don't any better it's called a 'hand-out'.

The president represents the former, while the candidate and his supporters obviously, and mind bogglingly represent the latter.

It is VERY noticeable how not one of the quite vocal, conservative-minded members of this forum is able to acknowledge that Elvis Presley and his family were, without question, among the "47%" that the Republican challenger so denigrated at that private fundraiser for rich constituents.

And that the governmental policies that helped the Presley family through the hard times led to Elvis completing a high school education (a first in his family) and getting a full-time job right out of high school.

Food for thought.

Right on the money, Doc. And today's Republican party is the party of religious extremists, a party that constantly talks about limiting the role of government....except when it comes to involvement in the affairs of other countries around the world. And how does their talk of limited government stand up when they are wanting to tell women what to do with their own bodies, and sneak into everyone's bedrooms? Obama hasn't had 100% success in his first term...and we can blame that mostly on senate and house Republicans.

Elvis Presley and his family were, without question, among the "47%" that the Republican challenger so denigrated at that private fundraiser for rich constituents.

And that the governmental policies that helped the Presley family through the hard times led to Elvis completing a high school education (a first in his family) and getting a full-time job right out of high school.

With that logic you're implying that the Presley family would have actually
voted for Obama pre-1955? Do you really believe that?

Let's for your sake say they would've. But if you follow your logic through
you'd be saying that Elvis would've voted for Romney from 1956 on, seeing
he was in that most hated group of Romney's other 53%. You know the ones
your buddies from Occupy Wall Street call the One Percent.

Can't have it both ways Doc. Although you do try.

rjm, I appreciated your good wishes to people of both persuasions. Thank you.

You're most welcome. We're all Americans, and everyone should vote. If you're a citizen over 18, you should vote.

-----------
Now, Blue: "Liberals" are NOT radicals. "I knew radicals, and, Mr. River, radicals are no liberals." (Inelegant, but you get the idea.) In fact, radicals dislike liberals more than conservatives dislike liberals! Seriously.

rjm

Elvis Presley and his family were, without question, among the "47%" that the Republican challenger so denigrated at that private fundraiser for rich constituents.

And that the governmental policies that helped the Presley family through the hard times led to Elvis completing a high school education (a first in his family) and getting a full-time job right out of high school.

With that logic you're implying that the Presley family would have actually
voted for Obama pre-1955? Do you really believe that?

Unless you have that DeLorean, that makes no sense! On any level at all. You know very well that the Doc meant a family LIKE the Presleys, exactly like them, living today. Two poor parents with a teenaged son, who did not teach him prejudice. This was something Vernon said he was MOST proud of, above anything else, in the '78 interview he gave at the end of his own life. "We never put anybody down." I believe that's the exact quote.

In '57, Elvis wrote in that telegram: "God created everybody equal." So to suggest that the Presleys would vote color in the fifties - because "everybody like them would" - underestimates them as people, and assumes that all southern whites thought alike. That is wrong.

Because your implication is that because of the "time" that the Presleys would have voted "color" in "pre-1955," and I do not believe that, if it were possible. It was not possible, so it's silly to suggest a black candidate in the fifties!

But as for Elvis, it should be understood that wealth and income are two different things. Elvis "consumed" rather than acquired. He gave away, at times, the shirt off his back. So, if he were presented with a Romney character at the time, I don't think he'd be impressed. I can't think of ANYONE in his lifetime, who seriously ran for president who was like Romney in that sense. I can't think of anyone at all. Name anyone who is like him, from that time? I don't think you can. No one like him ran for President. Sure, there were those who had money - and wealth, but no one like him. With offshore accounts, and tax dodges . . . no one.

Was Elvis "the one percent"? It depends on whether you are talking about wealth or income. He died in the hole. And no "wealthy" person keeps a million bucks in A CHECKING ACCOUNT! So, if you're going by wealth, he was not on that side of the fence, and never could be. That's for another generation

His income was rather high, but he was often struggling even with that, because it went out very fast at times. Very fast. He was the greatest consumer the country's ever had!

There were no black candidates for President until Shirley Chisholm in '72, as far as I recall. And that was only a "statement." So it's absurd.

rjm

Unless you have that DeLorean, that makes no sense! On any level at all. You know very well that the Doc meant a family LIKE the Presleys...

Because your implication is that because of the "time" that the Presleys would have voted "color" in "pre-1955," and I do not believe that, if it were possible. It was not possible, so it's silly to suggest a black candidate in the fifties!

But as for Elvis, it should be understood that wealth and income are two different things.

Was Elvis "the one percent"?

rjm

RJM,
You might want to take a chill pill and read again what I said.
What does Elvis, as Doc suggested being in the 47% of what
Romney supposedly denigrated have to do with being black?

The great doctor seems to think he knows whom Elvis and his
family would have voted for it they were alive today. Or as you
put it, Romney and Obama going back in time with your DeLorean
and running for President.

And the years I suggested pre-1955 had to do with Elvis wealth,
not as you so erroneously suggested that it had to do with color.
Any true fan would know that there was a significant change in
his income between the years of '54 to '56.

I hope Elvis wouldn't have considered color if he voted. But we
really don't know the answer to that.

Unless you have that DeLorean, that makes no sense! On any level at all. You know very well that the Doc meant a family LIKE the Presleys...

Because your implication is that because of the "time" that the Presleys would have voted "color" in "pre-1955," and I do not believe that, if it were possible. It was not possible, so it's silly to suggest a black candidate in the fifties!

But as for Elvis, it should be understood that wealth and income are two different things.

Was Elvis "the one percent"?

rjm

RJM,
You might want to take a chill pill and read again what I said.
What does Elvis, as Doc suggested being in the 47% of what
Romney supposedly denigrated have to do with being black?

The great doctor seems to think he knows whom Elvis and his
family would have voted for it they were alive today. Or as you
put it, Romney and Obama going back in time with your DeLorean
and running for President.

And the years I suggested pre-1955 had to do with Elvis wealth,
not as you so erroneously suggested that it had to do with color.
Any true fan would know that there was a significant change in
his income between the years of '54 to '56.

I hope Elvis wouldn't have considered color if he voted. But we
really don't know the answer to that.

No chill pill required, for you and your 'team' I think maybe some truth serum or a plain old reality check is in order.

Time and time again during this election season, what your group likes to do and maybe all it can do is take words and topics completely out of context to attempt to prove a point. Unfortunately this approach works because there's alot of people out there that either don't want to or who just aren't equipped to go below the surface, they're often referred to as 'low information voters'. There's reality and then there's the re-imagined 'reality'. A good example is the hair splitting over the Libya topic in the last debate, about which word was used where and who said what when. The reality is that when Romney was about walk off the cliff, the president let him because he (the president) was confident about what he said in the Rose Garden. As Romney was fumbling through his lie, Obama said 'proceed governor' and then later before Candy Crolley said anything the president said 'get the transcript'. Thankfully the majority of people that watched understand full well how this played out, and they know that Romney bit it. He lied, he thought it was going to be a knock out, and it wasn't.

Now the second thing is the comment the Doc made. Look, it doesn't take half a brain to see what his point was, but as usual the peanut gallery has to whine about the 47% comment as applied to a poor family in the 30s and 40s. A good example and one obviously relevant to everyone here is Elvis' family. Whether you like it or not they were prior to Elvis' fame an example of what Romney so eloquently referred to as the '47%'.

This is what you people do and it's the philosophy you follow; distortion of the facts. That's all there is to it. I hope your enjoying Fantasyland during the election season because one way or another the real reality is going to set in and trust me if it's your way or not, you're not going to like it.

... and we can blame...

That's the only thing the Democratic Party does well.

Have fun with that.

Time and time again during this election season, what your group likes to do and maybe all it can do is take words and topics completely out of context to attempt to prove a point. Unfortunately this approach works because there's alot of people out there that either don't want to or who just aren't equipped to go below the surface, they're often referred to as 'low information voters'. There's reality and then there's the re-imagined 'reality'.

This certainly seems to be the case on these boards if not elsewhere. While the Romney supporters seems very keen to dredge up tables of facts and figures at the drop of a hat, they either don't realise or don't want to realise that they tell only half of the story.

We all know Romney and his supporters do not like what Obama has done and is doing, but none of his supporters on these boards seem able to say "Romney will do this if and when he becomes president". Instead all they seem to do is present an image of where Obama is failing in their eyes. Surely a better tactic would be to give examples of how Romney would do better if he became president, and what policies he would implement.

I see no discussion of Romney's policies and they seem unimportant to his supporters, if this board is anything to go by. It seems a rather negative way of discussing politics if the whole debate is built around where the current president is failing rather than how and why the competitor would succeed.

Rather than supporting Romney, people seem to simply not be supporting Obama. And that is no reason to vote Romney unless you have evidence that he would do better under the same circumstances.

We all know Romney and his supporters do not like what Obama has done and is doing, but none of his supporters on these boards seem able to say "Romney will do this if and when he becomes president". Instead all they seem to do is present an image of where Obama is failing in their eyes. Surely a better tactic would be to give examples of how Romney would do better if he became president, and what policies he would implement.

I see no discussion of Romney's policies and they seem unimportant to his supporters, if this board is anything to go by. It seems a rather negative way of discussing politics if the whole debate is built around where the current president is failing rather than how and why the competitor would succeed.

Rather than supporting Romney, people seem to simply not be supporting Obama. And that is no reason to vote Romney unless you have evidence that he would do better under the same circumstances.

poormadpeter,
Seriously, Mitt Romney is not everything that I'm looking for in a President and I think many conservatives feel the same way.
I personally don't think the Republican Party is conservative enough.

However, as for the choice that we Americans have between Barack Obama & Mitt Romney, I'm basing my vote on what I feel is the lesser of the two evils.

We all know Romney and his supporters do not like what Obama has done and is doing, but none of his supporters on these boards seem able to say "Romney will do this if and when he becomes president". Instead all they seem to do is present an image of where Obama is failing in their eyes. Surely a better tactic would be to give examples of how Romney would do better if he became president, and what policies he would implement.

I see no discussion of Romney's policies and they seem unimportant to his supporters, if this board is anything to go by. It seems a rather negative way of discussing politics if the whole debate is built around where the current president is failing rather than how and why the competitor would succeed.

Rather than supporting Romney, people seem to simply not be supporting Obama. And that is no reason to vote Romney unless you have evidence that he would do better under the same circumstances.

poormadpeter,
Seriously, Mitt Romney is not everything that I'm looking for in a President and I think many conservatives feel the same way.
I personally don't think the Republican Party is conservative enough.

However, as for the choice that we Americans have between Barack Obama & Mitt Romney, I'm basing my vote on what I feel is the lesser of the two evils.

So, for all your shouting and screaming from the rooftops on these boards, you actually can not tell us what positive things about Romney that you are voting for other than "he's not Obama"?

So, for all your shouting and screaming from the rooftops on these boards, you actually can not tell us what positive things about Romney that you are voting for other than "he's not Obama"?

I didn't say that. Now you're twisting my words and ignoring my past posts (foreign policy, etc.) about the positive things concerning Mitt Romney.
Your attitude is a perfect example of why I feel compelled to copy and paste things more than once. You read into things what you want to.
Here... try absorbing this again -

Obama invested TAXPAYER MONEY in:
Solyndra - BANKRUPT
Ener 1 - BANKRUPT
Beacon Power - BANKRUPT
Abound Solar - BANKRUPT
Amonix Solar - BANKRUPT
Spectra Watt - BANKRUPT
Eastern Energy - BANKRUPT
GM Volt - Solyndra on wheels.
Note: All of these companies were Obama campaign contributors.
$900 Billion Dollars with NO Jobs.

Romney's Bain Capital invested PRIVATE MONEY in:
AMC Entertainment - 1500 Theaters, 18,550 Employees.
Burger King - 8432 stores in the United States with 10's of thousands of Employees.
Burlington Coat Factory - 475 stores, 28,729 Employees.
Clear Channel Communications - 20,000 Employees.
Domino's Pizza - 10,000 Employees.
Dunkin' Donuts - 10,000 stores, thousands of Employees.
Guitar Center - 225 stores, hundreds of Employees.
The Sports Authority - 14,300 Employees.
Staples - 1575 stores and thousands of employees.
Toys "R" Us - 836 stores with thousands of employees.
Warner Music Group - 3,700 Employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, for all your shouting and screaming from the rooftops on these boards, you actually can not tell us what positive things about Romney that you are voting for other than "he's not Obama"?

I didn't say that. Now you're twisting my words and ignoring my past posts about the positive things concerning Mitt Romney.
Your attitude is a perfect example of why I feel compelled to copy and paste things more than once. You read into things what you want to.
Here... try absorbing this again -

Obama invested TAXPAYER MONEY in:
Solyndra - BANKRUPT
Ener 1 - BANKRUPT
Beacon Power - BANKRUPT
Abound Solar - BANKRUPT
Amonix Solar - BANKRUPT
Spectra Watt - BANKRUPT
Eastern Energy - BANKRUPT
GM Volt - Solyndra on wheels.
Note: All of these companies were Obama campaign contributors.
$900 Billion Dollars with NO Jobs.

Romney's Bain Capital invested PRIVATE MONEY in:
AMC Entertainment - 1500 Theaters, 18,550 Employees.
Burger King - 8432 stores in the United States with 10's of thousands of Employees.
Burlington Coat Factory - 475 stores, 28,729 Employees.
Clear Channel Communications - 20,000 Employees.
Domino's Pizza - 10,000 Employees.
Dunkin' Donuts - 10,000 stores, thousands of Employees.
Guitar Center - 225 stores, hundreds of Employees.
The Sports Authority - 14,300 Employees.
Staples - 1575 stores and thousands of employees.
Toys "R" Us - 836 stores with thousands of employees.
Warner Music Group - 3,700 Employees.

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but Bain Capital is a private company that invests in firms in order to make money for itself (namely Romney and others). While those companies employ thousands of people, they would also have employed the same amount of people had another company other than Bain invested in them. As Bain has be called "notorious for its failure to plow profits back into its businesses," could you therefore explain how Bain's stakes within the companies you list above are actually helping the country as opposed to making Romney richer?