Mitt Romney Says He Didn't Say That, After He Did Say That


Could he just fall down an elevator shaft in one of his mansions already?
If the republican party doesn't sort their shit out now, their next presidential candidate is going to be just as unelectable as Mitt.
As Bill Maher recently said, "Republicans love Ronald Reagan so much that in 2012 they nominated his hair".
"I don't want to spend a lot of time on this"

Oh fuck, you mean we can expect a longer post from you today?
Urgutha, they're not even willing to admit that their shit is in need of sorting. I give them next to no hope for winning in 2016, especially since they'll probably run someone even further to the right than Romney.
Here's what needs to be done. The Dems need to start making an issue of all the wealthy people getting government welfare. They seem reluctant to do that out of self preservation, I guess. But that needs to change.
If only he believed in objective reality like Ayn Rand.
@7 LOL
he may have SAID it, but he did mean to say something else. 47% of voters will vote Dem no matter what he says in the campaign. that's true, and uncontroversial.

the "beliefs" he then attributes to that 47% he MEANT to attribute to a much smaller slice of Democratic voters, the Undeserving Poors.

in closing, fuck him and fuck his cloistered privilege. get out on the streets and see the homeless from one end of Seattle to the other, Willard. they CAN'T take personal responsibility for their lives, and the federal government isn't giving them you-name-it.

the GOP solution is: let them die in the streets, and make Liberals pick up the bodies.
who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.

Always nice to see a Republican admitting that they want to see poor people die in the street.
You can't really claim that something was taken out of context when there are paragraphs upon paragraphs of context on either side of it!
@1: *car elevator shaft, FTFY
"Are you going to believe me or your lyin' eyes?" - Richard Pryor
The 47% number came from citizens that dont pay income tax. While the unemployed and retired generally do vote, citizens under 18 don't. So no, you dont get to change the meaning of that statisic to "Democratic voters", welfare recipients, or anything else it doesnt represent.
Obama probably would have won, anyway, but it was a key moment in the campaign. It completely epitomized the Republican Party as it exists right now. This is not Mitt's father's Republican Party. Or even the party as it existed when Mitt ran Massachusetts. But this is the party as it exists now -- run by idiots and ideologues.

Two theories: Either Mitt believed every word he said, or he didn't. If he believed what he said, then he is an idiot. To think that a man who was born into wealth wants to spout out about entitlements, and economic justice, when many of the folks he is talking about served in the mother fucking military, fighting wars your party started is just too hard to believe. No one is that stupid, right? Right? OK, maybe.

The other theory is that he didn't believe a word of it. He simply said it so that he could appeal to the ignorant, evil wing of his party (the ones that write the big checks). If that is the case, then there is a special place in hell for him, right next to George Wallace.

47% of those who file tax returns pay no federal income tax. Of that number about a third are retired or military, good citizens who have or are paying for the privileges of their citizenship.

The rest believe the world owes them a living. They believe that their food, health care, housing, child care, college or trade school are the responsibility of their more frugal, farseeing neighbors.

And yes, Democrats promising these layabouts they'll never have to pay their dues as citizens mean these grifters won't vote Republican.
Sometimes you're truly batshit, and at others, so fucking predictable. But doubling down on the 47%? This just tastes good.
@15 Mitt, is that you?
We already knew he had no integrity and twisted facts to suit his own needs, typically twisting them the opposite direction the following week when it served his needs then. He proved this ceaselessly during the 2012 campaign. He can say whatever he likes about it to help him sleep at night, but history will remember. He'll always be associated with that number 47, one way or the other.
@18: Wasn't that just fucking delicious?
SeattleBlues: You have anything resembling facts to back up those asinine suppositions of yours? No? Thought not.

Why are people still paying attention to Mitt Romney?
@15: When did Democrats ever say that poor people wouldn't have to pay ANY taxes?
The IRS provides the data on their website.

It debunks pretty much every lie liberals tell. The rich do pay their share, plus 5 to 10 percent depending on which specific year is looked at. And the bottom half of those filing taxes, adding in the abomination of EITC pay no federal income tax.

Look it up yourselves, I'm not your secretary.
@ 23, not paying income tax isn't the same as paying no tax. Right?
@23: The EITC is an abomination? That's funny. I thought it was a tool giving parents some extra resources to properly raise their children. What, would you rather that the children of the affluent be the only ones with access to proper nutrition and education?
Also, your post equates to the following:
"You're wrong, but I don't any evidence to support that. Here, you go look for some."
I'm not buying it.
Also, Seattleblues, I'd like a response to my statements laying out the overwhelming evidence supporting sexual orientation as an actual physiological phenomenon determined by brain structure.