jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (93 posts)

Concerns about Mitt Romeny

  1. steveamy profile image61
    steveamyposted 5 years ago

    To all of the Republican supporters .... Are you in the least bit worried about Romney's professed "non-worry" for the poorest Americans??

    1. Michael Willis profile image78
      Michael Willisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I saw this online, BUT...I also saw the entire sentence. You can make anything look bad by choosing a few words out of context!

      1. steveamy profile image61
        steveamyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        my point exactly .... he seems to have the ability to speak in terms that give the other side be it newt or the Democrats

      2. Pcunix profile image88
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        He said "if it needs repair"

        That shows how clueless he is.  The safety net has been tin to shreds by GOP policies.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't really care about poor people - no offense, but when I taught in an inner city, a lot the poor people were selling food stamps to subsidize their income generated through violence.

      The Constitution doesn't allow the Federal government to care about poor people, so Romney's statement doesn't REALLY matter. Unfortunately the Constitution is dead, buried, and desecrated, so it actually does matter.

      Officially? His statement is inconsequential.

    3. uncorrectedvision profile image60
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Unlike Mitt Romney, who thinks that liberals have it right with the "safety net", I do not believe that government offers any solution to the problem of poverty.  On the contrary, I believe government profits from the perpetuation of poverty.  That is American style poverty, where huge amounts of money are transferred every year from the productive to the nonproductive.  From the makers to the takers.  Transfers of vast sums that are first filtered through a growing and inefficient bureaucracy that is fostered, cared for and encouraged by liberal politics.  It is for the convenience of the liberal that American style poverty persists.

      Real poverty is fly covered faces and famine bloated bellies.  Not hypertension, obesity, ignorance and illiteracy.  The liberal refuses to address the fundamental cause of American style poverty - character.  Poverty in America is a function of choices.  If one pursues as much education as one is able.  Does not make babies until after married.  Delays marriage until after educated.  Pursues employment, increasing wages and ever increasing responsibility to the level of ones innate abilities it is nearly impossible for one to be poor for long - even after a disastrous or catastrophic event.

      So, in short.  Mitt "cares" more about the "poor" than I do, which is why he won't get my vote.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Keep going, you're on a roll here. smile
        Now can you explain why the fact that Mitt also doesn't care about rich people will not earn him your vote?

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You fail to see though you may read.  It isn't rich or poor.  There is no middle class.  Class is a Marxist(Karl not Groucho - though the laugh factor can trick you) not an American notion.  No one with any gumption in America remains in an arbitrarily assigned class.  As free Americans(perhaps formerly free would be better) mobility in and between income and wealth cohorts was common.  It is in the ossified structure of liberal politics and economics that one is "the poor" or "the rich."

  2. Michael Willis profile image78
    Michael Willisposted 5 years ago

    Here is what I read and source.
    Romney's full comment to CNN was: "I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling, and I'll continue to take that message across the nation."

    Romney remarks to CNN

    Romney and the other candidates need to be more careful about every word spoken.  There is always someone watching to choose what few words they can use to distort what is said.

    1. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      True, and both sides are guilty.

    2. 2besure profile image84
      2besureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If he had stopped at that first sentence, it would have been fine; or added, In am concerned about Americans, all Americans.  The poor have their...When you are exhausted, to tend to say what you really feel.  I also think it was a bad move to pose with the Donald!

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Trump may hurt Romney more than help him. His "I'm not wooried about the poor" is the latest in a series of gaffes. I'm sure the Obama folks will be playing them back to us Sept-November. He's apparently never had much face to face contact anybody outside the 1 percenters.

        1. 2besure profile image84
          2besureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I can see that he does not have the connection with those of us that work hard every day to give a families a good life.  It is not his fault he was born into money.  That was an accident of birth.  Let's hope he has great advisers and that his Mormon faith does not affect how he rules if elected.  You have to really be tied into a church you give 2 million to in tithes.  I know they have prophets and people they have to answer to.  Because of his wealth he may have a high position in the Mormon church.  That would be my main concern.  Remember the HBO special about poligamy in the Mormon church and how messy is was behind closed doors, with the forced marriages arranged by the prophet?  Scarey!  They have many secrets they hide from the secular world.

          1. Repairguy47 profile image60
            Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            He gave two million to his church in tithes? Didn't Obama just say the other day that people should give more if they have more? How much has Barry given?

            1. 2besure profile image84
              2besureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Not a dig, just an observation.  And Obama said if you can afford to pay more taxes, do so, not give it to the church.  As a long time Christian, I am aware that religion is also very political.  Those who give more in church get special treatment, high positions and recognition.  So his giving to his church is not necessarily from the goodness of his heart, but possibly, positioning himself to have favor in the Mormon church.  Just wondering.

              1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Actually Barry was quoting the bible and the verse was talking about giving money to the church. If you recall tax collectors were not exactly favored in those days.

                1. 2besure profile image84
                  2besureposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Do you mean, Luke 20:25?  And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's. If you are a Christian you have to do both.  Even though the tax collectors are crooks! I am with Ron Paul on taxes.  He won't win but I like a lot of the things he says.  He seems to be unfiltered, so he is not playing to the crowd.  He tells is like he sees it.  If you don't like it tuff!  I have watched all the debates and he stays constant in his beliefs.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                    Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I don't mean Luke 20:25

                    Luke 12:47-48:

                    "The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

              2. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The LDS church doesn't work that way. Church leaders don't get paid, and paying tithing doesn't get you any special treatment.

  3. Dolores Monet profile image91
    Dolores Monetposted 5 years ago

    I hate it when they chop off a bit of a sentence and post it as what a candidate said. That being said, Romney was not so concerned about the thousands of middle income people that his company laid off, yet be brags about creating jobs, low wage retail jobs at office supply stores and pizza shops.

    1. Michael Willis profile image78
      Michael Willisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Of course! Creating jobs does not equal a living wage. You hear all the time from politicians about "new jobs created, (minimum wage/temporary positions), but when will they speak about the plant shut downs or jobs lost?
      I heard on the news this morning something about American Airlines filing bankruptcy and needing to send their planes overseas now for cheaper repairs and maintenance??? Thousands of American jobs to be lost!
      Wonder what all the politicians will have to say about this news?

    2. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He created many more jobs that he cut. I tried to get into this, but ironically, none of the Romney/Bain bashers ever posted a reply to my forum topic on it.

      Have you ever looked at the companies he worked with, or do you just read the news reports?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        My impression is that the jury is out on how many jobs Romney/Bain created or eliminated. He likes to talk about his great success with Staples. It's true that Staples's employment grew considerably. However, Staples put hundreds of small stationery stores out of business. The number of jobs lost at small stationers may well have exceeded those added by Staples. Note: I'm not necessarily critical of this process. However, there's also the issue of the companies that Bain put deeply into debt, took money out, canceled the pension plans and left them bankrupt. I haven't seen any study that analyzed the facts wrt Bain's alleged job creation or destruction.

      2. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. I'm ready to give Mitt a chance.

  4. mio cid profile image61
    mio cidposted 5 years ago

    Romney is a bad candidate,if the economy is not in worse shape by the time the predidential election start the dems will destroy him.

  5. erniesliter profile image60
    erniesliterposted 5 years ago

    He flip flops on alot of issues.

    1. rebekahELLE profile image91
      rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      yes, I think so. Although I'm not too surprised by what any politician says in campaign season. What bothered me about the statement in regard to the poor, was the safety net. I'm not sure that's what the poor need. The net keeps them exactly where they are. They need a way to move up. And yes, I know that some of them don't really care, but many do and they want up and out.


      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6117764_f248.jpg

      This showed up on my FB feed, I thought it was appropriate. Is the man next to Reagan Ron Paul?

  6. profile image0
    oldandwiseposted 5 years ago

    I'd have real reservations about Romney's statement about the poor. He seems to think all poor don't work. Some poor work and just don't make enough to make ends meet. They're not on public assistance programs and not middle class. Those folks don't have any safety net. So by his statement little to nothing would be done to help them. Then he states, let the foreclosed homes go back to the banks. Further states, let investors buy them, repair them and rent them out, as the investors can ride the bubble. Just how does that help the average Americans at risk of losing their homes?

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This is what they've got people believing:

      "I work hard every day and pay taxes to support 47% of American people who do nothing but sit on their butts all day"


      They have demonized half of America! Someone on here uses the word atavistic to describe it.....that is right on the money!

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How many have lost their homes under Obama? More Americans lost their homes in the 3rd quarter of 2009 than EVER before, despite Obama's programs:

        http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/15/real_es … s_deepens/

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Here's what Obama is doing about it, but it depends on CONGRESS!

          What is Romney's plan?

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/zillow/2012 … omeowners/

          1. steveamy profile image61
            steveamyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Romeny's plan .... let the foreclosures happen

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              An economic bubble that is continually re-inflated perpetuates the hardship that re-inflation is expected to cure.  A re-inflated bubble pops with greater violence and scope.  The current bubble(s) are popping after Alan Greenspan had kept them inflated for years with strange manipulations in the money supply.  This current down cycle can be traced to a rise in interest rates in the six months at the end of 2006 and beginning of 2007.

        2. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Be fair, Habee.
          Obama had only been POTUS for 9 months by then.
          The buildup to foreclosure takes years.
          You don't miss 3 payments and they take your house right away.

          1. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's true, MM, but Obama had rescue programs in place that simply didn't work. Also, home foreclosures for the 3rd quarter of 2011 returned to the level from 3rd quarter 2009. Obama had been in office for almost 3 years at that point:

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/ … 3U20111221

            Oh, and by the way, the figures quoted aren't for the actual "taking away" of the home that "takes years," as you said. This is for people who are 60 days late with their house payments. Obviously, that doesn't take years.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image91
              Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, that's true. Thanks for clarifying.

              The whole bad-loan-to-worse-foreclosure problem is huge and horrible.
              If good credit (I mean like now PERFECT credit) weren't required to finance a home these days, I'd be very inclined to walk away from mine and buy the one down the street for $200K less.
              Isn't that the American Way?

              1. habee profile image91
                habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Same here, MM. The house across the street from us is a HUGE four-bedroom with a big fenced-in yard, fireplaces, and other nice extras. Several years ago, the house sold for almost $200,000. Last year, it sold for $60,000. I know our house has decreased in value, too. Funny, though - our property taxes went up!

    2. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

      Any doubts I momentarily had about Romney based on that (seemingly) way out of touch statement about not caring about the poor (Freudian slip if ever there was one) have now been erased.
      Romney's now been endorsed by The Donald.
      What more evidence do we need?
      He's the man.

      http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Entertainment/2010/donald_trump_640.png

      1. profile image0
        oldandwiseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol, yeah the man who lives by the sword, or should I say "You're fired".

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Romney's professed liking to fire people struck a sympathetic chord with Trump.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Good one, Ralph!

      3. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You're concerned that another rich guy endorsed him? I guess it would make a difference to you if he had been endorsed by some really poor guy? Liberals amaze me.

    3. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 5 years ago

      Sorry, guys - I'm ready for a change, and Romney seems to be the least bad of the GOP choices.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I geuss I don't understand how going back to Bush policies is change?

        Do you mean you want Republicans running America? You just want change from Obama?

        Hope and change....maybe Romney is the new Messiah! smile

        1. habee profile image91
          habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Going back to the Bush policies? Many Dems say Obama has done nothing but extend the Bush policies. I want someone who understands business and the economy.

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Romney is worse than Bush, imo.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Really, you think he is worse than Bush - well I cannot think of a better endorsement.

    4. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      Also their slum-lord association. Trump was fined for it, Romney takes money from Kronos Capital, the "second biggest slum-lord" in New York City.

    5. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago

      Romney took the bait and came out yesterday in opposition to Ogama and Panetta's plan to accelerate our pullout from Afghanistan. Obama is reportedly eager to debate the issue. I also believe Romney is more inclined to attack Iran or encourage Israel to do so. We need another war like a hole in the head. There are much better options than military ones.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat … story.html

    6. Wayne Brown profile image88
      Wayne Brownposted 5 years ago

      I am not concerned about the statement in that the news-worthy aspect of it was a mainstream media that conveniently took it out of context and ran with it. I am more concerned about the same media that lets the fire die on "Fast & Furious" and totally turns its back on the Georgia court action regarding a judge's demand for Obama to produce records. If there was a Republican in the White House, those efforts would be front page news. I am concerned that Romney is not conservative enough nor does he have a depth of understanding of conservative principles. America sorely and urgently needs a return to Constitutional government first and foremost. The respect for the Constitution and its guiding principles are in the gutter with this administration and will only get worse if another term is awarded. How can a supposed "Magna Cum Laude" graduate in Law be so destructive to the Constitution and its principles...is this what we are teaching in terms of law these days. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Ginsburg, just advised that Egypt should look to other nations around the globe for a "constitutional model" but not to America....sounds like she is a believer, huh? Mitt Romney won't fix America because he cannot pull enough seats in the Congress to create the majority he needs to do that but he will accomplish a magnificent task if he can rid this country of Obama before we have to endure four more years of this disaster. WB

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I like it when you post to the forums.  It is as if the little voice in my head has a laptop and goes to town when I am distracted by the dog or the wife.

        Mitt Romney(nor Newt Gingrich) are instinctually conservative.  Ronald Reagan spent decades thinking, writing and speaking about conservative principals and ideas.  An adult man who does not know his own mind by the age of 50 isn't to be trusted as a representative of conservative principals

    7. kateperez profile image76
      kateperezposted 5 years ago

      A truncated and poorly repeated partial quote of something a man said will not skew my opinion of him.

      He's right.  The rich are rich, don't need attention.  The poor get all that entitlement help and if it is broke he'll work to fix it... Who really has been thrown to the sharks by the lemmings?  The middle class people who are footing the bill for the higher taxes imposed on corporations and rich people.

      He did not say he is not concerned with the poor.. he was saying that they don't need his concern because they're being taken care of..

      DANG!  A little research enlightens the night sky.

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ditto

    8. profile image0
      oldandwiseposted 5 years ago

      Just how many of today's poor where middle class before the recession? To say the poor have a safety net and look at those struggling Americans who slipped from middle class, by no fault of their own, as having that net isn't true. Most are struggling to keep their heads above water, doing the best they can, so they don't have to get assistance. Those are the folks no one seems to want to talk about. Easier to just throw them into the poor class and forget about them. And to make it easier on that thinking, some make themselves believe those struggling are getting assistance.

    9. rebekahELLE profile image91
      rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

      Because he made the statement with little regard to how it may be perceived reveals a lot of just how out of touch he is with the American public. The poor are hardly just those with a 'safety net', they are probably much more like many thousands of people writing on sites like this. Many more who have no homes because of foreclosures.. Do you honestly believe this man has any real vision other than trying to beat Obama? After he won Florida's Republican primary he even said, this election is about beating Obama. That's his platform? Not much substance or vision for a presidential candidate.  What does he spend his time talking about? 
      And now he gets the endorsement of Donald Trump, a man so far removed from the 99%.
      Koch Brothers and other conservative billionaires met last weekend to pledge $100 million to defeat Obama.  Whose interest do they have? Yours? Not a chance. Their agenda is not the America you envision. Multinational corporations/big business already pull the strings, let the 1% run the country and see what gets taken away.

      1. profile image0
        oldandwiseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        RebekahELLE I agree 100%. He represents the top 1% and I'm afraid his jobs strategy will be to make corporations stronger and richer, at the expense of small business. And when I say small business, I'm referring to ma & pa family businesses wilth only a few employees if any. It seems their idea of small business is one with 50 to 100 employees. Look at your downtown areas, how many have 50 plus employees. Will those businesses be the sacrifices for large corporations? And if so, how will that impact rural America?

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Oh yes, all corporations are evil for putting ma and pa out of business.

          Do you have a computer? Do you have a phone? Do you have a car? Do you use any modern conveniences that are only possible because of large corporations?

          Certainly we would all be best off with a 5-acre homestead, growing our own food, raising cattle...

          1. profile image0
            oldandwiseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe we would. All these devices mentioned have made many lazy. I wonder sometimes if maybe we all would be better off with out all these modern conveniences. Kids played outdoors, no worries of x rated tv movies, people having a life outside of the confines of their homes, actually remembering a phone number and not relying on a name to know who's calling you.  When news was news. When people were excited about NASA and the first man on the moon. When parents and children enjoyed looking forward to picnics, walking in the woods, ice skating, getting outside in general. Yeah, the simple life. Maybe, just maybe it was better.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You know, there are less-developed countries where you can setup your own homestead for a very small amount of money, so that dream is more in your reach than the 'American dream'.

              1. profile image0
                oldandwiseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So I'm to understand the American Dream is to get rich, step on anyone in your way, have no compassion for your fellow man, make fun of those not on your level, and hire the poor as your servants? Oh, and go to church on Sunday? If that's the American Dream, I'd prefer to move to that homestead, purchased with a small amount of money, and enjoy a full and simple life.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The American Dream is that we all have the opportunity to pursue the future we want. As a national community, we come up with advances, we progress, and we work to share those advancements.

                  When people pursue their own dreams(what you seem to think of as selfish), it has an amazing effect. Anyone who works simultaneously creates supply through their work, and demand through the money they spend.

                  You can take from that what you will, but obviously you have a problem with progress.

                  1. profile image0
                    oldandwiseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Not against all progress, but some advancements are left for interpretation. Losing site of the simple things, in the name of progress, in my opinion, isn't progress. I do respect your opinion however.

                    1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Yeah, those crazy research chemists confining themselves to their work for days and weeks at a time in the single minded pursuit of the next phase in cancer treatment - that is just wrong.  People shouldn't do what I think they shouldn't do.  They should do what I think is healthy and right.  If someone spends his whole life pursuing excellence and wealth comes as a consequence well that is just immoral and wicked.  Why didn't he do the right thing and go on a picnic with his doggy more often?

                      Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Edison, Tesla, Ford, Salk, Einstein, Disney they should have soaked their toes in the ocean more often rather than pursue those things that fulfilled them.  Because I know best how others should fulfill their own lives.

                2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That is how you think people actually get rich.  Looks like you have something brown smeared on your glasses.

            2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well if the Obama program continues to work as it has so far you will get plenty of fresh air waiting in line for potatoes or toilet paper.  The poorest people in the world produce all of what they consume and consume all of what they produce.  There is no surplus to trade for shoes or a radio.  Poverty, like tyranny, is the history of the world before the American and subsequent revolutions rooted in Enlightenment ideas about the relationship of between government and governed.  It is a relationship that has slowly been twisted back to what it once was - paternalistic with the state owning the citizen as one might own a horse or a dog or ward or a child.

              When you are ready to be an adult again and take the reigns of your own life will that freedom still be yours or will you have to petition the central committee of the Democrat party.

        2. rebekahELLE profile image91
          rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Their agenda will make a bigger divide between the rich and poor.

          all one has to do is look at Boehner's 'leadership' in Congress.

      2. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So where do you think Obama's $1 billion in campaign money is coming from?

        1. rebekahELLE profile image91
          rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That figure has been tossed around, but denied from their campaign manager.  Their 2012 campaign money comes from their supporters, not PAC's or the Koch brothers and their team.

          The point in my above post is the source of GOP campaign money. I'm sure you've done some research on the billionaire brothers and their agenda. I could provide links, but it can be easily searched. Among other evils, they are behind the GOP war on voting, making it harder for certain groups to vote. Here's one very thorough article. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … g-20110830 

          I know some will roll their eyes at the source, but it's definitely worth reading. This same information can be found from other reputable sources.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The GOP war on voting - that is a cool bumper sticker - can I order that and a new hash pipe in the back pages of that paragon of objective research and journalism The Rolling Stone.

            How about taking a look at who Barry's( we need to get the money out of politics now send me a $5000 contribution to help me raise a BILLION DOLLARS - hypocrite) bundlers are and how much they bring to his Billion Dollar campaign. 

            http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundl … =N00009638

            When GWB ran liberals all shouted about big money influence when the average size contribution to his campaign was $50.  It takes a lot of $10 contributions to off set a $2 million bundle from those other virtuous paragons in Hollywood.

            Take a look at one name on that bundlers list - John Corzine at MF Global - I wonder how much of that money was stolen from his investors and if he and Bernie Madoff(D) will be cell mates.  (sidebar John Corzine was once the Democrat Governor and Senator from New Jersey - he also worked for another contributor to Barry and beneficiary of government largess - Goldman-Sachs)  I wonder if that great journal of record - The Rolling Papers - ooops - Rolling Stone ever did an in depth investigation into that incestuous relationship.

          2. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I've already posted the links to Obama's PACs on another thread. He is supported by PACs. In 2008, George Soros was a huge Obama supporter. Also, many of the same big businesses that were supporting Obama in 2008 are now supporting Romney. Ds didn't have a problem with their support for Obama, but now that they're backing Romney, they're bad. lol

            Two of Obama's PACs are Priorities USA Action and Priorities USA.

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- George Soros, the billionaire investor who bankrolled Democratic groups during George W. Bush’s presidency and then indicated in 2010 that his giving days were over, is back.

              He just isn’t giving to the political action committee working to re-elect President Barack Obama."

              1. habee profile image91
                habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Notice that I said Soros backed Obama in 2008.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          A small amount came from yours truly.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Money well spent - once it is all over maybe we will have to go back to the Drachma right next to Greece.

          2. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And some of Romney's $ came from me.

    10. rebekahELLE profile image91
      rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

      yes, Taibbi did touch on it in one of his daily blogs. Have you actually ever read one of their investigative articles, or do you just assume it's not worth reading? You might learn something new.  It's not all anti-GOP.
      http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl … d-20111207

    11. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      "Sure, Obama has made a career of railing against the power of big money in politics — but the president’s 2012 campaign needs a handful of his rich supporters to write six- and seven-figure checks to counter the hundreds of millions Karl Rove and others plan to raise for Republicans.

      Unfortunately for Sweeney, who declined to comment for this story, Obama feels the same way. That’s a major reason Priorities USA Action and its nonprofit affiliate raised only about $5 million through the first half of 2011 — less than half of the $12 million collected by the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney.

      But the scorching effectiveness of the pro-Romney PAC attack on Newt Gingrich in Iowa, and the lack of a defense from any super PAC supporting the former speaker, has some of the president’s top campaign officials questioning a clean-hands stance born of principle and circa-2008 political packaging.

      “I don’t think the president is just ambivalent about his super PAC. He’s flat-out opposed to it,” said former South Carolina Democratic Chairman Dick Harpootlian, a member of the Obama campaign’s national finance committee who has raised more than $200,000 for the president’s Chicago-based campaign so far this cycle.

      “I was at the national finance committee in Chicago, and these are the people with these connections, and nobody was talking, even behind the scenes, about writing checks to the super PAC,” Harpootlian said. “That’s a problem. We didn’t make the rules. The president has called out the Supreme Court on Citizens United to their faces. … But it’s the state of play now, and we have to look at what Romney’s PAC did to Newt in Iowa. It’s dangerous. We can’t unilaterally disarm.”

      A pair of 2010 federal court rulings, including the seminal Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, paved the way for super PACs and nonprofit groups to accept unlimited contributions to air campaign ads. While federal law bars them from coordinating with the campaigns they’re trying to assist, team Obama’s decision to greenlight bundler cross-pollination sends a clear message of support."


      Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/01 … z1lRG3EeWl

      Whose fault? Money!

    12. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

      Why don't we ask which candidates support Citizens United?

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Citizens United decision is now the law of the land - just as Roe v. Wade.

        1. lovemychris profile image80
          lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Right: Obama supports Roe v Wade, and is against Citizerns United.
          Mitt is against Roe v Wade and supports Citizens United...Obama has my back, Mitt has Exxons.

          1. profile image69
            logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Obama doesn't care about your back or your front, he just wants to enslave you to serve his own interests.

            1. lovemychris profile image80
              lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Uh huh...I can see that, by how he wants to force me to give birth!

              Oh, and after the fact, he'll leave me to the dogs, cause you know, those like Ole Mittster need to pay Less taxes, not more...I mean--why should they be responsible for the baby they force me to have?

              Their responsability ends with their pocket-books...as with everything else. Let others pay for America...we shall keep our wealth!

    13. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago

      "In case you didn't hear, it was discovered last week that Edward Davies, Ann Romney's father -- an enthusiastically anti-religious scientist who called organized faith 'hogwash,' was posthumously baptized in the Mormon tradition 14 months after he died," he said on Friday's episode of Real Time With Bill Maher. "They tried to do it sooner, but he wouldn't stop spinning in his grave."

      Donning a sorcerer's hat and wielding a magic wand, Maher then produced a black and white photograph of Davies, on which he performed his mystical ritual. The brief ceremony was made complete with references to Laverne and Shirley, Harry Potter and The Blair Witch Project.

      http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-f … ies-287107

      The video can also be seen on Maher's website.

    14. paradigmsearch profile image85
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

      Mitt clobbers Newt in Nevada caucus.

      Fox says 38% versus 20%.

    15. paradigmsearch profile image85
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

      Oops, I thought they were giving final stats. Numbers have changed a little bit. Still 2 to 1 for Mitt though.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Nevada ain't the south.
        They only buy into 50% of the GOP agenda.
        Money, yes.
        Pseudo Christian "family" values, not so much.
        smile

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Gingrich is dead meat!

        1. paradigmsearch profile image85
          paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pQwAwv6WupM/TubWpBM3eyI/AAAAAAAAAFA/Z3DUqz5IIPI/s1600/resting+steak.JPG

          1. habee profile image91
            habeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But Newt isn't nearly as attractive. lol

            1. steveamy profile image61
              steveamyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Where is my fork????

    16. profile image0
      jenuboukaposted 5 years ago

      Well if we can't agree on democrat or republican then let's go green with Roseanne Bar, yes folks she is running.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Now that news deserves its own thread.

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image60
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You mean she is "running."

     
    working