Ann Romney: 'We've Given All You People Need To Know' About Family Finances

reply to post by maria_stardust

I'm not sure I understand your post fully, and I'd like to get it just a bit clearer.

It's a hasty remark from the wife of a politician who has unfortunately raised the Us vs. Them divide.

I don't think you mean that the Us v. Them divide is being raised for the first time in this campaign. Certainly Obama has been banging that drum for months, with perhaps different characters for Us and Them.

It's a polarizing remark that separates the Haves from the Have-Not's.

As noted, that has been a constant theme of Obama's campaign. But, maybe, you are objecting to the divisive nature of the comment? In that case, do you feel that Obama has been a uniter, either during his first three years or in his campaign?

Whether she realizes it or not, she has just exemplified just how out of touch the Romneys are with the common people.

I'm not entirely sure how you go from Mrs. Romney's apparent frustration with the press, to being out of touch with the common people. In fact, I would suggest that the common person shares her frustration with the press.

But, as I say, I may be missing the point of your comments. Please straighten me out where I've gone wrong.

Originally posted by Jaellma
It's funny you claim you know for a fact Condi Rice voted for Obama

Nothing funny about it. She did vote for him. Therefore, Romney can't use her as VP.
The Telegraph - did Condolezza Rice Vote for Barack Obama
Washington Post - 2008
Huffington Post - Rice Congratulates Obama Tearfully, Says She Is "Especially Proud" Of Obama's Win

but yet you can come on here and trivialize the intent or meaning of what Ann Romney said.

1 - I didnt' trivialize anything. I stated a fact. 'you people' is a commonly used phrase.
2 - What Ann Romney said has nothing to do with Dr. Rice and her votes.
You are off topic and your attempt at deflection is transparent.

Sorry, but your credibility is at stake .

My credibility is perfectly fine.

right back atchya. Try staying on topic.

So he gave his church $4 million last year? I don't believe it for a second. He probably gives based on his wages and not his overall earnings. We are screwed either way folks. Neithe rguy has a plan for the future of America that are willing to share with the American people. That means we are not part of the plan, a plan that should reflect the desires of the people.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Thanks for the history lesson.

But it doesn't matter in the end. The allusion has still been made by Mrs. Romney that there is a definite class distinction between Us vs. Them.

Marie Antoinette, Leona Helmsley, Rousseau... and every other person who can be considered in some shape or form elite, ultra-wealthy, aristocratic -- who have uttered ill-timed remarks that ultimately backfire... Let this be a lesson that alluding to socio-economic strata is such a dismissive fashion is ill-advised in the world of politics.

Especially, with a presidential election around the corner.

reply to post by FlyersFan
I would ask you to prove it but since you would never have the facts, what's the use. Nice try but you are not getting any brownie points for your nonsensical claims.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
If there's nothing bad in those returns, why doesn't Romney simply release them?

If there's nothing bad in Obama's school grades, why doesn't he simply release them?
If there's nothing bad in Obama's college application, why doesn't he simply release it?
etc etc etc.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
The only reason the Dems are pushing for this is to use it as class warfare.

There ya' go. Exactly. As I posted earlier, very few of the POTUS' actually released their tax information and, of those that did, they didn't go all out and release 10 years. It's an absurd distraction.

reply to post by charles1952


My remarks have nothing to do with Obama or any other politician out there. Taken in proper context, my remarks are simply in regard to "all you people" comment made by Ann Romney.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
So he gave his church $4 million last year? I don't believe it for a second.

I do. He's mormon. They have a tithing requirement and since he's wealthy and a practicing mormon, I'm sure it was probably a really big dollar figure.
Mormon Tithing

Tithing always comes first in Mormonism. Any member who is struggling in any way (job loss, broken down car, depression, etc) will always be counseled to pay tithing in order to receive blessings. All blessings, privileges and callings in the LDS Church are centered around tithing. Without paying a full tithe, a member cannot be a “member in good standing”.

Mormons are required by Commandment of God to pay 10% of all their GROSS income to the LDS church. This includes all income, including, employment, social security, Medicare, food stamps and trust funds and any other form of income, even including finding money on the ground.

The Church Of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day Saints brings in an estimated 6.5 to 7.0 billion dollars a year in annual tithing revenues. The Church refuses to disclose to the public or its members how much money it receives annually and what those funds are used for. Because the LDS Church is a tax-exempt organization, it does not have to publicly disclose financial books.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
...and Kerry trumped that by releasing 20 years.

According to Romney that is irrelevant. It is Kerrey's wife returns that are important.

“John Kerry ran for president. You know his
wife, who has hundreds of millions of dollars, never released her tax returns. Somehow this wasn’t an issue.”

www.washingtonpost.com...

Poor Willard, he just keeps on digging that hole deeper and deeper.

Politicians, the people making the decisions for the direction of the country, should release their tax returns. Let the people know from where and how much money these people make.

Hiding it looks suspicious. What are we not to know.

Urban Dictionary - You People

It's a term to refer to a multiple group of people ... or it's a term used by one race when talking about another race. Obviously the term was used when refering to a multiple group of people and not the racial one. It's a common phrase.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Actually, the phrase "you people" can be used to denote quite a few things if one wanted to play a rousing round of semantics. The trick is to use the correct context when applying which inference is being made.

In this case, it could be she was alluding to the media... Or, it could just as easily be implied that she was referring to "all those" requesting the Romneys release more information. Or, it could refer to those who are considered the opposition. Or, those without mind-boggling wealth. Or, even those who are simply poor.

It's really hard to say. Context is everything.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Urban Dictionary - You People

It's a term to refer to a multiple group of people ... or it's a term used by one race when talking about another race. Obviously the term was used when refering to a multiple group of people and not the racial one. It's a common phrase.

No, it's not a racial phrase.

But it is a phrase used when you are talking about a group of people that you specifically are claiming that you don't belong to.

It's an elitist attitude...which no one should be surprised by Ann using it...well...because she is the definition of an elitist.

I LOVE IT! She says how jobs will come back to America? You mean all the jobs your husband sent out of this country to begin with???

Stupid, Stupid move GOP independent voters like me, will never vote for a Rich Good’ole boy like WILLARD THE RAT ROMNEY ever! And if they do they are mo(R)mons

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Obviously the term was used when refering to a multiple group of people and not the racial one. It's a common phrase.

You are right.

It is a common phrase and in this case it was used when referring to the "common" people. The lowly commoners.

www.youtube.com...

Dont worry Willard they will not give you cooties if you touch them. It is so obvious it hurts.

reply to post by maria_stardust


I guess we take things in the tone we want to hear.

Just like reading someones text comments, maybe we project our own emotion into the statement.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Precisely. For those who want to give Ann Romney either the benefit of the doubt or allow her a graceful exit from the ensuing controversy -- the context will be that "all you people" is meant in an innocent manner.

For those who are looking to condemn the Romneys it will be taken in a more ill-meaning tone.

For those who are sitting back and watching the show unfold -- it will be taken as an interesting lesson on NLP and how semantics can be a matter of perspective.

reply to post by maria_stardust

Totally agree. Context is everything. She was talking to a group of people and she said 'you people'. It's very simple. And it's a common phrase. A LOT of people use it.

My mother in law used to use it when she was alive. It's just the way they spoke. I didn't like it, but she never ment anything negative when using it. It's no different than southerners using 'ya'll'. (short for you all). That's talking to a group of people that you aren't a part of and it's no different than 'you people'. Different generations .. different parts of the country ...

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
But it is a phrase used when you are talking about a group of people that you specifically are claiming that you don't belong to.

... and she didn't belong in the group of people that were screaming for more financial records. So for her to use that phrase fits just fine.

It's an elitist attitude...

Looks to me that is just your partisan opinion.
- Romnney (who I'm not voting for) is providing no more and no less than others who have wanted to be POTUS.
- His wife used a common phrase when speaking with a group of people.

We've given ya'll all you need to know about family finances.
Now was that elitist? I basically said the same thing she said ...

reply to post by maria_stardust

Dear maria_stardust,

Thank you for responding, unfortunately, the matter is not cleared up in my mind.

My remarks have nothing to do with Obama or any other politician out there. Taken in proper context, my remarks are simply in regard to "all you people" comment made by Ann Romney.

And yet you also say:

Whether she realizes it or not, she has just exemplified just how out of touch the Romneys are with the common people.

How did you get to "Romneys?" Her remark reflects Mitt's opinions? This was an official campaign statement? If you insist that your remarks have nothing to do with any other politician, why do they have anything to do with Mitt? And "any other politician?" Are you claiming that Ann Romney is a politician? If not, it sounds like your trying to blame Mitt for his wife's comments. I don't think you or anyone else want to return to a society where the wife is completely responsible to, and can only comply with the wishes of the husband.

You made some other interesting comments:

Taken in proper context, . . .

and

It's really hard to say. Context is everything.

You are absolutely right, context is vitally important. Wouldn't context suggest contrasting one candidate's remarks on a subject with the other candidate's remarks on the same subject? Of course, the candidate didn't make any remarks, and we are inventing the meaning that the remarks might have had for Mrs. Romney, but what the heck, I'm flexible.

I hope you can see why I'm still confused by your positions. Help! If you feel like it.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Classified Info
It is a common phrase and in this case it was used when referring to the "common" people. The lowly commoners.

Um .. no. She was addressing the media who wanted even more private financial information released. She wasn't addressing the American public .. she wasn't addressing the peasantry or lowly commoners .. she was directly addressing the media who were asking about family finances.