so what were the 'gifts' that Obama gave blacks and latinos??? he seems to have only subtly implied that they received gifts. i wonder what he's talking about? boy howdy.

can he give me one more gift and go fuck himself?

takers gonna take

Romney is a fuck head. How did Obama win New Hampshire? Iowa? The list goes on.

CalvinBall wrote:Romney is a #$!&@ head. How did Obama win New Hampshire? Iowa? The list goes on.

bussed in votes from fried chicken places and welfare lines, or so mitt told me

guys all i hear are echoes

Not jacking up student loan interest rates and helping people find private medical insurance their family pays for are gifts. Good to know.

I got an Obamaphone.

there are makers, takers, & fakers

Mitt pwns door #3

with any luck, and if Seamus has his way, Mitt will be mauled by a pack of wild dogs.

Mitt's giveaways were to people who didn't need them, so there you go....

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 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,” he said. “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.”

what's so free about this healthcare? it's about expanding access. someone 35K a year would not be eligible for medicaid, they'd have an adult version of CHIP coverage where they'd pay part of a subsidized premium, am i wrong smooth?

it's good to know he lies to his donors too and not just us.

Also,

War, what is it good for?

thank fucking god for those student loan plans

< taker

but I'd have defaulted and maybe gone into total bankruptcy without them instead of giving the government a big chunk of change every month so I'm pretty sure they're better for both sides in my personal case

pacino wrote:

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 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,” he said. “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.”

what's so free about this healthcare? it's about expanding access. someone 35K a year would not be eligible for medicaid, they'd have an adult version of CHIP coverage where they'd pay part of a subsidized premium, am i wrong smooth?

You're certainly more correct than Mitt

Now that there's nothing in it for him to tell such ridiculous lies, why on earth would he do it? I mean he's not planning to compete for an audience with Glenn Beck, is he?

why does Luke Russert have a job?



mitch mcconell is 70. harry reid is 72. mccain was 70 when he ran. what's so different about pelosi?

So when low and middle income people vote their economic interests, they're moochers. But when rich people vote their economic interests, they're virtuous.

Those comments, combined with the credit card cancelling thing, show that Romney is a dick head. He may be rich, but he has no class or grace.

pacino wrote:why does Luke Russert have a job?

His dad stepped aside.

TenuredVulture wrote:So when low and middle income people vote their economic interests, they're moochers. But when rich people vote their economic interests, they're virtuous.

Those comments, combined with the credit card cancelling thing, show that Romney is a dick head. He may be rich, but he has no class or grace.

Even the moocher argument is specious. There are real economic benefits to helping people finish college, maintain health coverage, and stay in the country where they got educated. It makes sense to invest something in socializing a share of those costs. And they don't even carry the lousy externalities of Mitt's "gifts" to insurance companies, defense contractors, and fossil fuel extractors.

Since Mitt actually said it, I guess there's no need to hint race might have been a factor here.

pacino wrote:why does Luke Russert have a job?



mitch mcconell is 70. harry reid is 72. mccain was 70 when he ran. what's so different about pelosi?

Pelosi and Hoyer have been 1-2 in House Dem leadership since Gephardt stepped aside in November 2002. Clyburn has been #3 since early 2006. That's a remarkable amount of stability for leadership especially for a group that's gonna be in the minority for the 4th congress out of the 6 Pelosi has been in charge. None of the other House/Senate leadership groupings have been nearly as static (though plenty of the change has been forced and not just letting other people have a turn). When you combine that with two of the top three in the House GOP leadership being under 50 years old, and all three of the Dems being over 70, it's not a weird question.