Skip to main content

Romney 47% Part Duh (Deux)

Mitt Romney is at it again! During a May private meeting with donors in Boca Raton, Republican nominee Mitt Romney told his wealthy audience that it wasn't his job to worry about the 47% whom didn't pay federal income taxes. They were moochers, solely dependent upon the government and wouldn't vote for him anyway. As it was a private meeting, Mr. Romney was unaware that it was being recorded and that it would circulate the internet and airwaves more than lesbians scream when they see Justin Bieber. This resulted in his approval numbers falling harder than Dane Cook does for himself. Romney then attempted to suggest that he didn't really mean what he said during that private meeting and he would represent 100% of the people.

Following the beat-down Romney suffered on election day, he decided to suggest to fund-raisers and donors that Obama only beat him because of how generous he was with his gift-giving to certain key demographics - namely blacks, Latinos and young adults.

More specifically, Romney said: "In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups... With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift. Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents' plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008."

He continued with: "You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 a year, being told you're now going to get free health care, particularly if you don't have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity - I mean, this is huge. Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group."

In actuality, Obama won a slightly smaller share of the young person vote than he did in the 2008 election and there wasn't much difference between the two elections with regard to the African-American vote.

What's funny about this is for one - after Romney went back on his private-meeting words following the video leak and his approval numbers suffering as a consequence, he's essentially going back to what he stated in the video at the outset - that President Obama won because of the dependent moochers of this country. Secondly, he's kind of saying, "Obama won because he did good for some people. Shame on him!" Lastly, Romney makes it appear as if the president was the only one of the two candidates who promised any "gifts" to people. The fact of the matter is that while President Obama offered to provide some help and improvement in the lives of the bottom 98%, Romney only offered these kinds of benefits to the top 2%. While Romney was representing the top 2% of this country, the bottom 98% gave him a gift of our own - a double dosage of middle fingers when casting our votes for Barack Obama.

Why don't you just admit it, Mitt? You got your butt pounded harder than someone named Lance in prison. I think the question the lower 98% of people would like to ask you now is would you like some cheese to go with that w(h)ine?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/romney-blames-loss-on-obamas-gifts-to-minorities-and-young-voters/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"