I think we need a whole thread on this now.

The original article.



Here is just one of many, many articles about the videos (You can go out and find many, many more articles on it if you so please).

And some snippets from his press conference responding to the whole shitstorm.

Methinks this will be around for a while.

Romney lost the election with his comments on 9/11. This just further cemented his fate.

Forget the percentage, who knows if that is true but what isn't true in that statement. I see nothing but yes, yes yes yes and more yes. These are the people who don't care that gas is doubled, your food prices have increased, more people on food stamps than ever, an economy in the tank, continued wars, expansive govt health care and yet alot of those folks will vote for him again because they can see themselves drinking beer with him and he gets bear hugs from pizza shop owners. It's disgusting.

And then, the States can opt-out of the health insurance program, which means that we will be seeing many people and companies moving to those States leaving the remaining States which opt-in holding the bag, and this will certainly raise the costs of the insurance on those of us who will be required to buy it and will likely mean a higher fine, say in California, to make up the difference in loss to the migration to opt-out States.
10 percent of Americans now live in California. The opt-out States won't be paying for any outmigrations caused by the decisions of the opt-in States such as California. We who live in the opt-in States will be paying for the difference.

What will this mean as far as the ratio of tax-paying employed to unemployed who sign up for the free insurance?

Also, when we are required to buy the insurance, what happens to the people who are too poor and who wish to remain independent?

The government is likely going to want to know why they did not buy their insurance, else fine them for not doing so.

At which point, will they be forced to admit poverty and accept the "free insurance"?

And then if so, with government assistance comes obligations to the government.
Will the poor who wish to remain independent be required to answer to the government because they are receiving free insurance? Will they be required to answer for their medical conditions?
Will they be allowed the Right to a patient's informed consent?

Will there be trouble if and when the recipient refuses medications which produce harmful side effects should the government require 'patient accountability'? When the doctor collects on it?

Will they be required to account for their unemployment? Mind you, I am not referencing those who are on welfare or food stamps, but those who are struggling to be responsible for themselves.
Will they be required to submit to doctors and medical evaluations in order to account for their obligations while receiving free insurance?

Will the self-reliant poor be allowed to opt-out without penalties fines or investigations for doing so?

The main thing it proved is that Romney's a dick

Oh, Mitt. You silly, silly jerkface.

It's such a remarkably entitled asshole thing to say and I'm happy it's going viral! Going down in flaaaaames, bitch. He basically outlined contempt for 47 percent of the United States. Brilliant move!



Also, 'scuse me, but are you trying to imply Romney is correct and that Obama's entire voting base is made up of people who see themselves "drinking beer with him"? That's not even what Romney was saying!

What he actually was saying, basically, is that people in Obama's base don't pay taxes and want government handouts. Whoops, you got me, Mitt!

Just to be fair now, Obama did say that "We are responsible for Others".
And he did not say whether Others are responsible for themselves or to us for the handouts.

But it still begs the issues; that medical costs are outrageous.
That real estate is out of reach for most of us.
That we are dependent on the decisions of employers as to who gets the job. And who doesn't.
That we are dependent on our schools to teach us the things that we can actually use instead of merely teaching us how to be an accountable employee for the 1%.

And I don't see either candidate proposing solutions to these problems, but I am concerned about injuring the people whom the government "is trying to help" when the reality is, the insurance plan is all about reducing the deficit and may in fact function as a sting operation. And it stands a very good chance of backfiring when the States can opt out because, in opt-in States, the local public health systems which the poor currently rely on will no doubt be downsized because we now have health insurance to take care of both the sick as well as the federal and State deficits.

But again, the candidates need to clarify their positions.

I don't agree with that at all. With interest rates being so low and less than 5% can be put down on a home purchase, I don't think a house has ever been more accessible.

Of course houses are more affordable than ever.
Which, to anyone from 1983, is like saying "Color Television. Better than ever",
but that is a relative term given the green faces that we got used to watching back then.
Only the NBC Peacock looked o.k., but due to the custom color scheme used to translate the palate.

America should be a work-in-progress.

Compared to houses in Cali going for upwards of half a million dollars for what was a $50 thousand dollar home in the 1970's, now currently selling for $125 thousand to $250 thousand, then sure.
There was a time when California under then Gov. Brown, not Cali under Capt. Moonbeam mind you,
was about protecting The People by enforcing fair profit laws while cracking down on antitrust violators and price gouging. Not anymore. These days our representatives are in bed with the looters for property taxes by the (over-assessed) value of the single residence home.
So we instead see higher prices with no fair profit oversight. But that's how some people get rich fast.

So, when it comes to our political choices, everyone has their personal interest at heart, whether it shows or not. I just wish we could get back to Liberty and fair representation instead of what we can take for ourselves from the rightful owners while paying servitude to the highest bidder and what the market will yield.

EDIT: It's a Wonderful Life? Bueller? Mr. Potter?

When did this become a discussion thread? This is a thread to slam how idiotic Romney is. And to count down the days until he drops out.

Real Estate is unaffordable in America these days??





Romney is done...

A Hologram of Ronald Reagan would have done much better.

Well, most everyone that owns a home is in the hole still. And 20-somethings certainly can't afford homes now, even/especially after the bubble burst.

I own a home! Well... for now. Until it forecloses! HAH!

I don't believe he mentioned it once tonight...