Mitt Romney is AMAZED by touch screen sandwich ordering

My post wasn't directed at you but those with a more open mindset.

Raees wrote: My post wasn't directed at you but those with a more open mindset.

Explain to me how one has an "open mindset" about outright lies and manipulation?

Raees wrote: .And again I agree with you PrintSmith. And it was our forefathers who sought to protect the press in what they were doing at the time.
<snip>
Do you think we'd all be talking about this if we still had the FCC Fairness Doctrine which required that contrasting viewpoints be presented?

See the incongruity in your statements here Raees?

Raees wrote: Would you watch Fox as much if they really presented both sides?

A presumption on your part, isn't it? The only programs that I watch on any Fox network are aired on KDVR absent coverage on a national news event (9/11, Hurricane Katrina, that sort of thing). Television is for entertainment for the most part after all, and I consume it as such.

Raees wrote: Remember the edited and overdubbed Obama speech that made the rounds where he said he was born in Kenya? People still point to that video as "proof" he was not born in the USA. Even though his back was to the camera when he supposedly said it and there was no visible reaction or gasps from the crowd and the video was posted by a spoof site? People still believed it. It showed even a lousy edit job can still sway people.

The only people that video "swayed" were ones who were already convinced that the president was born in Kenya. And as it turns out, it seems that the original idea that Obama was born in Kenya has its roots in Obama's own author's biography that was published from 1991-2007 which made the very same claim. Rather ironic, isn't it, that the information Obama had published about himself for so long is what planted the seed that he wasn't born in Hawaii?

Raees wrote: And then there are people that find "editing" or photoshopping where there is none -- such as the "layered" Obama certificate of birth. Anyone who is familiar with Adobe Acrobat knows it takes a scan and puts the single document image into layers.

Actually, it isn't Acrobat that does it if it happens, it is a combination of Acrobat, the software of the scanner and the operator of both. Any person familiar with the operation of a scanner and uses it with professionalism knows how to scan a document to get the desired results. Anyone familiar with Adobe products knows how to create layers, edit layers and flatten layers. The controversy surrounding the PDF file was completely avoidable had it not been handled by rank amateurs. If you are intending to replace doubt with certainty, you don't entrust the task to amateurs, you have it handled by professionals. You don't send a private lawyer off in the dead of night and attempt to pull a September Surprise moment. You send the very people who are your harshest critics to retrieve the document along with your own people in a well publicized trip to Hawaii if you want to be recognized as the most open and transparent president the union has ever had and there are questions raised as to your eligibility. You don't suppress your college admission records, you request that they be released and allow them to be examined if they are sought after. As the president himself is quoted as saying, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." What truth is hidden in his college applications and his college writings Raees? If there is nothing to hide contained in those documents, why the machinations to keep them from being disclosed? Is the reason we can't see his college applications and writings akin to the reason that Nixon didn't want anyone hearing his tapes? He knows that they contain something which will damage him in some fashion? Would Nixon have had to resign had he said something publicly when he found out what had happened instead of worked to keep it hidden?

Raees wrote: I don't see any hope for this changing and, in fact, I think it will get worse. We've only been around 236 years and look how much the United States has changed. Look at how few people actually vote in elections in the U.S. Look at how much influence lobbyists and special interests have in shaping U.S. policy.

And why do they have such influence Raees? Is it because the federal government wields such immense power over the daily lives of the citizens of the States? Without the power to tell a farmer that he can't grow wheat to feed his own family and livestock, would the lobbyists and special interests have such influence on shaping policy? Isn't the best way to limit the damages of corruption, because we both know corruption can't be eliminated, to limit the amount of power in any one level of government? Isn't it the ability to exercise plenary power that is the object of the corrupt? Is it not true that when government has the power to do whatever it wishes for good purposes that it also possess the power to do whatever it wishes for evil ones? Does not our only sanctuary from tyranny then lie in preventing government from accumulating the power to do whatever it wishes to do even when that also prevents it from doing things which we believe will be beneficial overall?

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote: Would you watch Fox as much if they really presented both sides?

A presumption on your part, isn't it? The only programs that I watch on any Fox network are aired on KDVR absent coverage on a national news event (9/11, Hurricane Katrina, that sort of thing).

That was a collective "you" directed at the conservatives on this site.

No I don't see the incongruity of my statement. I wonder if we'd have even had a Revolution if the newspapers of that time presented both sides. But they didn't. They were partisan and now that kind of coverage is a dirty word.

If the State of Hawaii releases his birth records and says they are legit, that's good enough for me. The doubters are always not going to be satisfied. If both groups had gone and gotten the records as you propose, the birthers would have still claimed they weren't legit and were placedin the files after the fact. I never took you for a birther as I thought you were more intelligent than that.

What's hidden in his college records? Beats me. I only know if this age of Wikileaks if something were there someone with an agenda would have found it and leaked it by now. And if Obama did list himself as a citizen of another country in order to take advantage of a scholarship, it doesn't mean he's not a U.S. citizen. Sadly, I suspect he did just that.

As I've said before, I actually hope Romney gets elected, if only to see how he handles things. I don't think it will make much difference in the grand scheme of things, however.

ANOTHER fun road-trip-to-hell with those fun-loving Romney's trying to relate to the "little people" of the population... (I guess that's all the people who can't afford to own 7 houses and off-shore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland...)

Dog on the Roof!: On the Road with Mitt and the Mutt

http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Roof-Road-Mit ... 131&sr=8-2

Democracy4Sale wrote: He should call up Bush-41...They could compare notes about how amazing the UPC-scanners at supermarkets are....

(Must be part of the daily allotment of "human-interest mingling-with-the-unwashed-masses" time allotted by the campaign.) He's obviously SO good with relating to "common people".

(...And how IS that car elevator coming along in California?)

The incident with Bush-41 and the UPC scanner was pretty much made up by the press at the time as well, similar this phoney Romney touch screen story...

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/bushscan.asp

Bush wasn't at a supermarket and saw a scanner for the first time. He was at a grocers' convention and his comment was about a whole new technology at the time which was shown at the convention, it could weigh groceries and read mangled and torn bar codes.

By the way, MSNBC was in hot water a few weeks ago when they edited stuff out of the Zimmerman 911 tape to make it look like Zimmerman was profiling. And now they show this Romney tape where they once again edit stuff out to change the whole meaning of what really happened. Yes, you can see this done on the internet, but how often do major news organizations (and MSNBC is part of NBC) get away with crap like this, twice in a row?

Raees wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Raees wrote: Would you watch Fox as much if they really presented both sides?

A presumption on your part, isn't it? The only programs that I watch on any Fox network are aired on KDVR absent coverage on a national news event (9/11, Hurricane Katrina, that sort of thing).

That was a collective "you" directed at the conservatives on this site.

Which mitigates the presumptive nature of the statement not at all. You have no more knowledge of the viewing habits of the conservatives who post here than you did of me as an individual - which makes the statement very presumptive whether it is applied to me individually or to conservatives on the site in general.

Raees wrote: No I don't see the incongruity of my statement. I wonder if we'd have even had a Revolution if the newspapers of that time presented both sides. But they didn't. They were partisan and now that kind of coverage is a dirty word.

Dirty to whom exactly? That one is a partisan standing for what they believe should be a source of pride, shouldn't it? Jefferson didn't think his partisanship was anything to be ashamed of when he challenged the Statists of his day, and I feel no hesitancy in challenging the Statists of today. I am proud of my opposition to the "progress" of fundamentally transforming our republic of coordinate levels of republican governance into a single state ruled by a central government with the plenary power to do as it wishes, when it wishes to whomever it wishes that the "progressive" is, and has been, seeking since the dawn of the last century.

Raees wrote: If the State of Hawaii releases his birth records and says they are legit, that's good enough for me. The doubters are always not going to be satisfied. If both groups had gone and gotten the records as you propose, the birthers would have still claimed they weren't legit and were placedin the files after the fact.

Which is only possible due to the endless delay tactics taken by Obama himself. Had he chosen to demand the document be examined when the question first arose, the argument that the document was altered or forged would carry far less weight than it does 4 years later.

Here's the thing Raees - Obama knew that for the last 17 years he had sought to have others believe he was born in Kenya. That much is clearly evident from the history of his author's biography. He also knew that it would be a problem for him if it could be demonstrated that he did it. Perhaps not legally, but certainly perceptually. There is no way on God's green Earth that Obama beats Hillary for the party's nomination if it was established that he knowingly and purposefully sought to have others believe that he was born in Kenya for the last 17 years to serve his own purposes. Obama has known all along where the idea that he had been born in Kenya came from, he was just hoping that the change he made to his author's bio would prevent others from finding out too. The only way to accomplish that was to make sure that every document remained sealed, just as Nixon knew that if he released some of the tapes then all of the tapes would have to be released. The only way either man's participation in their deceptions could remain hidden was if neither of them released anything. Obama wants the attention fixed on his birth certificate. The longer he can manage to have people looking in the wrong place, the more likely it is that they won't discover the document he doesn't want you to see. If he allows one document to be ruled out by allowing it to be examined, then it becomes more likely the document he wants to remain hidden is found because he has lost his ability to justify not releasing the other documents. What he is trying to hide may be a mystery, but his continuing attempts to prevent any disclosure of any documents pretty much convinces me that he's trying to hide something.

Raees wrote: I never took you for a birther as I thought you were more intelligent than that.

I'm not a "birther" Raees, but neither am I one who thinks Obama constitutionally eligible for the office he holds regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or on the planet Mars. FWIW, I don't think Rubio is eligible to run on the Republican Party presidential ticket this November for the same reason even though it is pretty well accepted that he was born in Florida. Obama and Rubio may be US nationals, but neither of them is a "natural born citizen" as understood by those who made the requirement part of the Constitution.

pineinthegrass wrote: Yes, you can see this done on the internet, but how often do major news organizations (and MSNBC is part of NBC) get away with crap like this, twice in a row?

Yes... We can see it all the time... On FauxNews...(Hmmmm...is that considered a "major news rofllol rofllol rofllol organization" by you?) And by anything from Breitbart...and anything from O'Keefe...

Oh my... You mean it's happened before? Like Obama's "Apology Tour" video? Like the Obama "I'm a Muslim" video? Like the Obama, "I'm from Kenya" video? Imagine my surprise!!

Democracy4Sale wrote: ANOTHER fun road-trip-to-hell with those fun-loving Romney's trying to relate to the "little people" of the population... (I guess that's all the people who can't afford to own 7 houses and off-shore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland...)

Dog on the Roof!: On the Road with Mitt and the Mutt

http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Roof-Road-Mit ... 131&sr=8-2

I can't decide who raises the level of debate more here, LJ or VL. (Sarcasm!)

Horse race, I will give it to VL by a nose, but LJ is making gains.

So the tabloid faux reporter/anchor/whatever Andrea Mitchell said today that she "didn't have enough time to play all of what Romney said" so instead of appoligizing for grossly taking his statements out of context, then laughing with the other fools on MSNBC, she just played thewhole thing in context and never admitted wrong. No wonder only the mega lefty nuts watch that dying network.