A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Romney now says his 47% comment

Posted: Oct 5, 2012

Well, I tried to find a link to a Fox News report on this; but when I googled "fox news 47% completely wrong," I couldn't find it reported by Fox News on-line anywhere....yet. I'm not sure how they'll avoid reporting on and/or spin this one.

No matter how poorly Obama performed in the first debate, don't the Romney supporters get even a little tired of his constant "fluidity"?

At any rate, I will say that he's finally said something that I "completely" agree with--his comment about the 47% was completely wrong!!

;

To answer your question - Romney supporter

[ In Reply To ..]
That's good that if he said something wrong he comes out and admits it is wrong. More than I can say for other politicians. Obama is wrong on a lot of issues, but he never admits he's wrong.

I understand reading posts here that the 47% comments here are taken completely out of text.

I see you don't care for Fox News and that's fine. Everyone has different likes. That's why there are many news stations. If there is something wrong they report it that it was wrong. Many times I've heard people on Fox say they were wrong, so unsure about your "spin" comment. If they are wrong they say they are wrong. It's not spin, its more than I can say for MSNBC.

I'm not sure what you mean by the fluidity comment. If you are talking about flip-flop. Sure who isn't tired of that, but the same question can be asked of Obama supporters. "Don't the Obama supporters get even a little (bold and underlined) tired of his constant fluidity/flip flopping".

The way I see it is this. All politicians flip flop. They'll say whatever is needed to say to get people to vote for them. Romney and Obama are no different than other politicians. Every once in awhile there's a good politician, but you never see them run for office. So Romney's "fluidity" is no more than Obama's.

I'm voting for Romney because I think he is the best man for the job and has the most experience. I think his voting records and what he has done to help people in his area is better than Obama's record. I think he understand the economy and the importance of a budget. He won't miss the important meeting and just go to the "fun" ones. He'll treat our military with respect. Heck, he'll treat the American people with respect. He won't call them the "enemy". I think he will unite instead of dividing. I think he has a lot of good qualifications and attributes, and Ann will make a lovely first lady. One the country can be proud of.

I take exception to quite a bit of this. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
"That's good that if he said something wrong he comes out and admits it is wrong."

Except for that one time when he said he won't allow his campaign to be run by fact-checkers.

"So Romney's "fluidity" is no more than Obama's."

This is demonstrably false.

"I think his voting records and what he has done to help people in his area is better than Obama's record."

Healthcare? Hmmmm

"I think he understand the economy and the importance of a budget."

Not well enough to explain it despite repeated requests, evidently.

"He'll treat our military with respect."

Like he did when he said they weren't important enough to make his speech? An item on a laundry list, I believe is what he likened them to.

"Heck, he'll treat the American people with respect. He won't call them the "enemy"."

Except for that pesky 47%.

"Ann will make a lovely first lady. One the country can be proud of."

I'm bursting with pride for the one we have now. I think she's amazing. I wonder why you don't.

And I take exception to your post - Romney supporter

[ In Reply To ..]
1. If he said something wrong he came out and admitted it and that's good. Obama, never.

2. Romney's fluidity is no worse than Obama's. This is demonstrably TRUE. Just because you don't want to believe it does not make it false. It's TRUE.

3. His voting record and what he has done to help people is better than Obama's record. That is also true. Not going to list them here. Too many and it's late. I'd say look it up, but know you won't and since you don't care then not worth my time. His voting records and what he's done to help people is better than Obama's record. Creating jobs for people would be on the top of the list.

4. He understand the economy and the importance of a budget. He explained it just fine. For the people who are giving him a fair chance we all understand. The haters...not so much because they don't care and they don't wnant to know.

5. Yes he treats our military with respect. He never said they weren't important enough. That's a lie and you know it. He never called the 47% (which you obvious are taking out of context), but NO he never did come out and say "they are the enemy". Obama however came right out and said republicans were the "ENEMY"!!! Get it, oh never mind, no you don't.

Yes, Ann will make a lovely first lady. No the current one is not anything to be proud of. Stealing taxpayer money to fund her vacations, her kids friends, her friends, million dollar hotels, separate vacations from her husband AT OUR EXPENSE!!! Saying "all this for a damn flag". NO YOU BET I'M NOT PROUD OF THAT!!!

You really don't want a itemized list of what she has done to lose the respect of many. Your bursting with pride for that???? I'm ashamed of you!

I'm seeing a lot of your opinion here, but not much fact - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Many of the claims you're making have been disproven, with solid links, right here on this very board. You can assume all you like about me, but I do my homework and I'm not afraid to read the truth about any candidate. How else would I know which one to choose? Facts don't scare me. I don't deal in fear, unlike a great many people who plan to vote for Romney.

Your statements here prove that you're guilty of the blindness you accuse me of. Maybe you should educate yourself before lecturing others.

I also suggest letting go of the fear. That's no way to live.

Jiminy Christmas.... - SK1

[ In Reply To ..]
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

People who don't detest Romney realize that the 47% comment WAS taken out of context and referred to campaign focus, but it was still wrong and I would hope that he's chewed his tongue bloody for having said it.

Obama is just as guilty of lying and flip flopping as Romney or any other politician. There have been entire websites set up to record them (with links). I'll share the first two that pop up for your reading pleasure.

http://http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

http://www.therightsphere.com/2012/04/president-flip-flop-barack-obamas-broken-promises-policy-reversals-and-continuous-flip-flops/

Personally, I think that the amount of money Michelle Obama has spent on vacationing is obscene and a poke in the eye to Americans, given the state of our economy. A million dollars for three trips -- imagine the good that money could have done.

People beat each other black and blue over the rightness or wrongness of the candidates. Doesn't it make more sense just to share legitimate information, focus on the issues and let everyone make their own informed choice rather than accusing people of being uneducated, fearful and blind?

It reminds me of a schoolyard fight -- "Your candidate's a doo-doo head!" "No, YOUR candidate's a poo-poo mouth!" "You're stupid" "You're ugly!" "Your mother dresses you funny!"

Want to discuss issues? Great. Want to verbally beat somebody into submission and throw barbs? Why waste the brain cells.

Hi, SK1. About that... - (SM)

[ In Reply To ..]
....when you say: "People who don't detest Romney realize that the 47% comment WAS taken out of context and referred to campaign focus...," I just don't agree that it referred to campaign focus. He continues on to say that the 47% "....believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."

Actually, I hope all of us Americans ARE entitled to health care, food, and housing. Those don't just concerning campaigning and peoples' votes....those are things that I'd say most of us can't live without, and we ARE entitled to them. That's not just about campaigning; that's about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... - SK1

[ In Reply To ..]

You are certainly entitled to pursue them, it is not the overnment's responsibility to provide you with entitlements.

But, SK1...what about the very, very - poor or destitute? (sm)

[ In Reply To ..]
The ones who are truly destitute through no fault of their own? They do exist, you know.

Let's talk about a nice, modestly comfortable young couple. Let's say they got married and had children right out of college. Let's say the couple's parents didn't grow up wealthy and were of a generation where not everyone went straight to college after high school. The parents worked very hard, but they were never "rich" so weren't able to pay for their kids' college costs outright or help them set up housekeeping; those kids had to get college loans, saved for a down payment on a house (with a mortgage), and bought all of their own household needs.

Now, let's say the young couple starts a family and has a few kids. Many devout, young Catholic families I know have a higher-than-average number of children, even nowadays. Let's say they have several children, one right after the other....let's say 4 or even 5 kids (I know of quite a few here in my community). The husband works a decent job but doesn't make money hand-over-fist...maybe had to take a pay freeze or even a cut to keep his job so the company wouldn't have to lay people off. With 4 or 5 children, it's not feasible for the mom to work outside the home--can't make enough to cover the cost of childcare for that many children, plus it's important to her that she be home with her children when they're young. They don't live in luxury, but they manage to get by O.K.

We all know that everyone with young children should have life insurance, but it's not mandatory to carry it; and let's say this young couple can just manage to buy immediate necessities like food, a roof over their heads, co-pays on their kids' doctor visits, utilities, school supplies....maybe they sacrifice life insurance payments to pay for Catholic school tuition if that's a priority for them. Life insurance would be nice (and smart), but they can get through the day without it, so, for now, a life insurance policy gets put on hold. Good people can make bad choices.

You probably know where I'm going with this--the young husband dies suddenly. Doesn't matter how--it can happen in so many ways, and a lot of them wouldn't involve the family getting any kind of big payout or lawsuit settlement. Let's say that's the case--the young wife is now a widow with 4 or 5 children to support on her own and hasn't worked in quite a few years while raising the kids. She's totally on her own. Her parents (and parents-in-law) don't have enough money to help her....they're close to retirement, and they haven't managed to save a nest-egg, either, because they, too, had several children which took most of their non-college-degreed income to raise. Nothing extravagant or luxurious...just the everyday expense of raising several kids. (Two of their kids were girls, and even though they were modest ones, putting on a happy celebration for their daughters' weddings wasn't more than most Americans would say they were entitled to do).

So now. How does this young-ish widow with 4 or 5 children to support do that all on her own? If not the government's responsibility to provide some type of assistance to this family (as you say it's not), what would YOU like to see happen to this decent family?

I didn't say we shouldn't help. - SK1

[ In Reply To ..]
I said it's not a constitutional "right."

How do you achieve life, liberty.... - SM

[ In Reply To ..]
...and the pursuit of happiness if you don't have housing, food, and healthcare? (Remember, THOSE were things Romney himself named when he disparaged the 47% for expecting help.)

Hmmmm, I guess I'm misinterpreting you, then; but I took it to mean that "we" shouldn't help when you posted this: "it is not the (g)overnment's responsibility to provide you with entitlements."

You don't view housing, food, and healthcare as "entitlements," do you? (Those were the things we were talking about in this thread.) Or DO you view them as entitlements? If so, this may be why we disagree--I don't see basic human needs as entitlements, especially when a citizen is not able to provide it for themselves, on their own. Another example would be a mentally disabled adult whose caregiver parents have both died without an estate or a trust fund left to support that adult child. How would that individual sustain their constitutional right to life without some help from the government--or us taxpayers, if you will. Is there where those proverbial bootstraps come in? Pull yourself up; and if you can't survive....oh well! (???)

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness... - SK1

[ In Reply To ..]
You obviously realize that we already have those things. What you're debating is who is responsible for supporting them. And no, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to provide them. I think it's our responsibility, as human beings, to individually help each other through a variety of ways. If we, collectively, decide to allow our government to administer some if that help, that's great in limited venues. I think in many cases allowing the government to mandate entitlements is the lazy man's way to feel like they're doing something without getting off their own butt.

I think that health insurance is a benefit -- one that we pay for. It is not a right. Medicaid and food stamps are not rights. Subsidized housing is not a right. Those are gifts given to people in need by their fellow Americans. But they're not rights.

I do differentiate between a right and a privilege.

But, this still doesn't say... - (SM)

[ In Reply To ..]
...how you think the truly needy--a young widow with several children and no job or a mentally disabled adult whose elderly parents have died--should provide themselves with food to survive and a roof over their heads to be out of the elements. Not everyone "obviously already has those things" now, without some sort of help.

You say, "I think it's our responsibility, as human beings, to individually help each other through a variety of ways." But DO we assume that responsibility? Would YOU be willing or able to take that mentally disabled adult into your home and provide adult daycare, feed, and support that individual? I couldn't. Who will? It's a lovely fairy tale that all of the truly needy in this country will be "taken care of" by the loving generosity of churches, private programs, family, friends, and neighbors; and though they may WANT to, the need and expense is too great.

I have a feeling that when people think of those receiving some sort of help from a government program, they often have an image of a lazy, otherwise healthy moocher who just doesn't want to work or a Welfare Queen. That may describe some; but there are a lot of others who receive government help who don't fit that description at all. My 88-year-old dad who served in WWII, for one. None of us siblings could come anywhere close to supporting him in a way that would replace the SS income and Medicare funding that he receives. I certainly wish we could, but it would crush us financially. It enables him to live out whatever years he has left in some dignity....that's the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness thing that he (and many thousands more like him) would not be having otherwise.

I'm really not trying to be angrily argumentative with you about this. I'm more sad than mad.

I completely agree - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
that everyone's entitled to their opinion. However, they're not exempt from being challenged when they express them on a public forum. If you don't want to be challenged, don't post publicly. Only the moderators can control how or what someone posts, and as long as the post doesn't break the rules, complaining when someone strenuously disagrees with you comes across as defensive and runs the risk of appearing whiny. If you (general) wish to participate, you need a thick skin and the ability and willingness to back up your claims.

I'm standing by the "fearful" comments (that's mine you responded to). There's a tremendous amount of fearmongering coming from the right, because it works. We see the results all over this board.

Well then you need a pair of glasses or different ones - What I wrote is the truth

[ In Reply To ..]
No, everything I wrote has not been "disproven". What I wrote is the truth based on facts obtained from various websites.

It's evident facts DO scare you because you won't even face them. People like you are not willing to read or watch anything outside of the liberal box. Don't care if independent research has shown differently than what you believe. Heck, don't even believe the voting records and facts of what has happened when its right there in your face. It doesn't fit in with the adoration for Obama syndrome, so not going to listen.

I've education myself on Romney and I've lived through this regimen. You have not and don't want to. Besides, not voting for just Romney, voting for whole republican makeover of all politicians. They didn't learn their lessons the last election they were all voted out. Its going to be the only way our country can survive.

I wouldn't start to go there - if I were you. (SM)

[ In Reply To ..]
Wow, if Romney says something wrong he admits it's wrong...and it only took 2-1/2 weeks to come out and admit it, and then only because it had been revealed in the first place, and THEN only after 17 days of being totally taken to task for it by, well....not just the media! As a Romney supporter, don't you just kind of wish he didn't say something wrong so often in the first place?

The 47% comment was taken completely out of text? Uh-uh....I don't think so. (And I can just state that because, as another poster said, I'm entitled to my opinion.) :-) Speaking of taking something out of context, the GOP made a convention PLATFORM out of Obama's "you didn't build that," for crying out loud...and THAT was truly taken out of context!

If you've heard Fox News people say "many times" that they were wrong, doesn't that make you wonder why they're wrong so many times?? Every news outlet will come out and say they're wrong when it's proven by others that they WERE. They could never escape the repeated negative publicity by others in the media if they didn't come out and retract a wrong statement. I've seen it plenty on Fox News -- make a totally false statement against the "other side," so the statement is out there, and then just come back and say, "Oops," and all will be forgiven.

No, I'm not at all tired of any flip-flopping by Obama, now that you ask! Maybe all politicians do it SOMETIMES....often, it's just a slight misstatement or slip of the tongue by the politician; but in Romney's case, it's total 180-degree changes without explanation of why he's changed. If you think Romney hasn't been a lot more "fluid" than Obama, I don't even know what to say to that!

Obama only goes the "fun" meetings? I wonder how much "fun" it was in the meeting that day when he gave the order to take out Osama bin Laden? I don't think either you or I have any idea of all the hard, tedious, stressful, and crushing decisions President Obama has had to make. We aren't privy to ALL the meetings Obama attends. It's a good guess that all the "un-fun" meetings aren't covered by the media.

I think Obama has a lot of good qualifications and attributes, too; and I think Michelle Obama makes a lovely first lady. I guess these are just some of those pesky "opinions," and yours and mine differ. So what? I don't doubt that Ann is a great person, too; but Michelle is one of the most well-liked first ladies yet, and that's not just MY opinion. She would be a hard act for Ann to follow.

Oh I'll go there, but reading your post your not interested - Romney supporter

[ In Reply To ..]
1. I don't give a rat's *** (yes we all know that word, but so the cry baby libs don't report me I've left out the a word) how long it took him to say he was wrong. He said he was wrong. Period! End of discussion on that. As an Obama supporter you should wish he didn't say half the things he says, but you're fine and dandy with all his lies.

2. The 47% comment was taken out of context. That needs no further comment on that.

3. I've never heard Fox news say anything because I don't watch it.

4. No, but of course you're not tired of the flip-flopping of Obama or any democrat. Only if its a republican. With that kind of mentality there is no chance for any meaningful discussion.

5. Never said the OBL meeting was "fun".

6. Okay, I'll give Obama credit. He's handsome and has a good singing voice. He's in great shape and he has a nice smile. He's got beautiful eyes too. Qualifications...that's a whole nother thread sweetie. Michelle is also a beautiful lady. Never said she wasn't. But don't particularly care for any first lady talking down about our flag or our country. I don't pay taxes so she can go spend it on lavish vacatiions for her, her kids, her kids friends, her friends or for that matter their lavish parties or date nights. They abused the tax payers dollars and you should be ashamed you think that is okay. Ann will bring back the dignity to the position.

Experience? - mbmt

[ In Reply To ..]
Mitt Romney does not have more experience than the man who has held the office of POTUS for the past 4 years.

Yeah, because he meant to say 53% :) - wheres_my_job

[ In Reply To ..]
Great - learned something new - you can win a debate by lying with confidence :(

Never mind. - SK1

[ In Reply To ..]
Almost stooped to schoolyard tactics.

One of Fox's mentions on the 47% comment... - (SM)

[ In Reply To ..]
After the 47% comment was first reported, here is the headline (below) from one article Fox had on-line. This was on Sept. 20th. Now, 15 days later, I guess it'll just be interesting to see what they say, now that Romney himself has called his statement "completely wrong."

"Governor Romney is courageous to stick to his guns about the 47%"
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published September 20, 2012

Oh, yeah; and remember when - Romney, at first,... (sm)

[ In Reply To ..]
...stood by his 47% statement? As usual, I guess that was before he didn't stand by it.

On Sept. 18th, this was in a Politico article: Mitt Romney on Tuesday afternoon refused to back down from his controversial comments that “47 percent” of Americans “are dependent upon government” and “believe that they are victims,” insisting in a TV interview that “people would like to be paying taxes” because that means they have higher incomes.

I clearly remember his supporters cheering about his courage for NOT backing down on the comment, initially. And you guys don't think Mitt Romney's stand on things is extremely "fluid"???

Maybe you should read BEYOND headlines. You might learn why - backwards typist

[ In Reply To ..]

the Judge said that. I have quoted a couple paragraph from his article below.

BTW, you DO realize that headlines are made to get reaction from the people so that they would read the rest of the story?

"A few months ago, at a private fundraiser, Romney spoke to supporters and contributors and observed that 47 percent of Americans do not pay any income tax, and thus his call for not raising taxes (though he wants to eliminate some familiar deductions, which is the functional equivalent of raising some folks’ taxes) will not resonate with the voters in that group. Then he went on to say that this is roughly the same 47 percent who are dependent upon the government for part or all of their subsistence; and to that subsistence of food, shelter, education and clothing, the feds have now added health care. Then he referred to those dependent upon the government as “victims” (his word). Then, among my leftish colleagues in the press, all hell broke loose."

"Mitt Romney was correct to call the 47 percent who are dependent upon the government victims of the government’s deceptions and lust for power, and he is courageous to stick to his guns."

"The reason hell broke loose among most of the media is that Romney spoke a painful truth, and often a painful truth is difficult to accept. I have argued that FDR deliberately set out to create dependence upon the federal government -- and hence upon virtually all Democrats in Congress and Republicans afraid to resist them -- by establishing entitlement programs and inducing reliance upon them. FDR went so far as to lie to Americans when he stated that the federal government will “hold” (his word) your Social Security contributions for you until you retire, and then you’ll receive your nest egg of cash. We know he lied about this, because at the same time he was saying that the money deducted from your pay is yours, he dispatched Justice Department lawyers to argue in a constitutional challenge of Social Security before the Supreme Court that the money deducted from your pay is the government’s money, and the government can spend it as it wishes. The Supreme Court agreed with that argument."

"Now comes Romney to say that this has gotten out of hand. The feds have deliberately created a class of persons -- 47 percent of people living in America today -- dependent upon them. The governor is right. Anyone lulled into a false sense of security is a victim, and any government that has deceived members of the public to get them there is dangerous."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/20/governor-romney-is-courageous-to-stick-to-his-guns-about-47/#ixzz28SlsaCo3

I think you proved the point - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
that the poster you responded to was trying to make.

Similar Messages:

Oct 28, 2013
...

Dec 18, 2013
I just need to get this off my chest...our local pharmacy will now only refill a controlled substance on the very day its due to be refilled, not any time before (used to be you could refill 1 week ahead). This isn't a chain pharmacy; they're local. They are open 7 days a week, not holidays, and the weekend hours are significantly reduced. The pharmacy people said it was a federal mandate. The drug I'm talking about is alprazolam, btw. The first month ...

Apr 02, 2014
But one million more than before are covered. Woot! Woot! link ...

Oct 26, 2016
Yeah, I misspoke. I don't want to post the whole article. it's too long but after you read the below, go to the site. it NAMES every reporter that RSVP'd and more. Thanks to the magic of Wikileaks, we now know EXACTLY which mainstream media reporters have been completely compromised by Hillary Clinton! A new set of emails released from John Podesta reveal 2 top-secret lists of reporters getting their cues DIRECTLY from Hillary. John Podesta actually sent out an invitation t ...

Jul 01, 2010
Look at it this way...if Hoover dam were to rupture, then everything down river would flood. The homeowners begin to bail water and try to get life back to normal, but their houses keep filling up with water. They call their insurance companies to begin the rebuilding process, but that can't happen until the houses stop filling up with water. The Government sends in millions of dollars to help rebuild communities, but the rebuilding can't begin until the houses stop filling up with w ...

Mar 25, 2010
x ...

Jun 29, 2012
It seems to me that a lot of MTs feel that the MTSOs are very greedy and pay slave wages. It is my understanding that under the ACA companies with more than 50 employees will have the option of either providing medical insurance *OR* opt out and pay the less expensive penalty. I also believe that many of these MTSOs have in excess of 50 employees, particularly the larger ones like Nuance and M*Model. Just keep that thought in mind while you connect the dots. ...

Jan 09, 2011
Please listen to what Mr. Olbermann is saying, even if you do not agree with his politics... this should not be a political issue. There are some things that simply are above left right and center. There are some things that are just more important. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq38Nnf4pOw ...

Apr 19, 2011
with you guys posting all this stuff when I wasn't around? LOL. Gotta go. I hope to catch up tomorrow. ...

Dec 19, 2013
I truly believe that Barrack Obama is holding something over the heads of our congress members just as he has done to the media and judicial system. He bribes, he threatens and he intimidates to get what he wants. I know this has gone on for years but this man is evil and he has the Muslim Brotherhood backing him. He is sending them billions of dollars and weaponry to form a strong army to use against us and he is even building an army here at home guised under the name of the Department of Home ...

Dec 01, 2009
This is for those who like and understand Keith Olbermann. It's about our occupation and war against Afghanistan. There's very little, if anything, that I disagree with him about. I hope those who do not care for Olbermann will at least listen to the comment and then give their opinions so we can have a real debate on this thread and not just drive-by one-liners like "I hate Olbermann" or "I hate MSNBC" or other comments along those lines. This is an OPINION piece by Keith Olberm ...

Jun 19, 2010
By AMANDA LEE MYERS, Associated Press Writer Amanda Lee Myers, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jun 18, 2:45 am ET PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said Thursday she's angry over comments by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that the Obama administration will sue the state over its new immigration law. In a June 8 media interview in Ecuador that began circulating Thursday in the U.S., Clinton said President Barack Obama thinks the federal government should determine immi ...

Oct 23, 2012
Here's a story and link of the following: Although the glory days of the United States Cavalry are long gone, horses still serve the military. At Smith Lake Stables, adjacent to Fort Bragg, N.C., 36 horses are owned by the U.S. government and serve their country in two assignments. In one assignment, they act as equine ambassadors, linking the civilian public to the military. The horses are used in an annual summer camp program and in weekly day camp activities for home-schooled kids. But ...

Jul 16, 2013
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR-Zimmerman_070213.html ...

Sep 28, 2016
The OP subject is an old joke on social media, but it is not a joke when you are the subject on comments such as what Trump has made about women. I think most women understand the insecurity about their bodies that gets instilled in us as children. If you don't understand, there are all kinds of psychological articles available on the subject. Definitely not someone who should be president. ...

Feb 02, 2011
Think he should have been suspended anyway? http://www.switched.com/2011/02/01/a...3_lnk3%7C40724 A California teenager who called his teacher a "fat ***" on Facebook has avoided punishment from his high school, thanks to the ACLU. In December, 10th-grader Donny Dunlap received an unusually large amount of homework from his biology teacher, so he decided to vent about it on Facebook. In a status update, the teen announced that the teacher is a "fat *** who should stop eating fast food, an ...

Feb 03, 2017
Big Bird should be called Bird Brain. New York City’s Mayor Bill de Blasio said in an interview Monday that he would categorize drunk driving “that doesn’t lead to any other negative outcome” a minor offense. DeBlasio was asked on CNN about New York’s stance as a sanctuary city and its refusal to turn over illegal immigrants who commit minor offenses. He said that he did not want to “see families torn apart” over something very minor. He was asked if he considered gran ...

Mar 13, 2011
Larry Kudlow on the earthquake: "The human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll and we can be grateful for that," Kudlow responded. "And the human toll is a tragedy, we know that." Guess he just made a slip of the tongue. They usually aren't quite so blatant about their greed. ...

Mar 01, 2012
I know, I know, it's an "old" video (from 2007). It took me a couple of days to find it. When I first saw it in 2007, I was quite impressed with this woman, not even knowing about her health battles. No matter your politics, this woman is a class act. http://www.myspace.com/video/mitt-romney/the-decision/16602414 ...

Apr 17, 2012
what Dukakis was to the Democrats in the 80s. Couldn't find anybody better to run and embarrassing to watch. Oh, and they were both Govenors of Massachusetts ...

Jul 16, 2012
considered for the vice presidency in 2008 he released 23 years of tax returns to GOP nominee John McCain? Now he wants us only to see 1 year, and maybe 2011 in the fall? What is he hiding? Me thinks he may be hiding very damning and embarrassing info that he does not want us the voting public to know. ...

Jul 26, 2012
This is just priceless. ...

Sep 23, 2012
My husband and his friends at work discuss politics at lunch, probably not with as little respect for each other as is sometimes shown on this board, but nonetheless that's a topic for another post. Yesterday, a lady who has been one of Obama's most ardent supporters, usually saying she just cannot support Romney because he is rich and cannot identify with her, told them of an incident she had witnessed that morning. She said a young man walked off his job and said ...

Oct 10, 2012
when everytime he says something his people have to walk it back? To misspeak is one thing but to tell so many lies he can't remember what his position is from one day to the next is beyond belief. ...

Oct 15, 2012
romney and outsourcing to china ...

Oct 23, 2012
...

Nov 07, 2012
47%. Blacks, Hispanics, gays, women who want abortions and free birth control, will never vote for him. They continue to want their free stuff. All I can say, is we better get to work, guys, we've got a lot of extra mouths to feed. ...

Jan 15, 2013
Remember this? Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne told reporters yesterday that the company plans to build more Jeeps in China. The Detroit News reports: “As part of our global expansion of the Jeep brand, there are some cars — that because of the price position in the market — can never be made in the U.S. and exported,” Marchionne told reporters on the sidelines of the North American International Auto Show. “We’re going to be announcing the first step in the globalization of Je ...

Mar 01, 2012
Posted earlier today or last dark time that one of the Romney's daddy or Jr donated an entire fortune to college education. I did not verify the information. But I do think that was an extraordinarily snobby thing to do. I guess he thinks everyone should be remade over in his image. That might not be so bad because he is handsome. Dont be fooled by his slick appearance. He is nice man to his family, but must be a snob. What he did to those people in the companie ...

Feb 29, 2012
Is his wife allowed to speak in public? I have never heard her say a word. the second question is will Willard forbid the Mormons from posthumously baptizing Jewish people into Mormon faith when he is president? Seems like that might irk some people in NY, FL and Oklahoma. ...