He has no real options back here in Minnesota, he was too bland and uninteresting for Minnesotans. Which, in itself, is a remarkable achievement…
Sure you can, especially among people who might be (perhaps recently) unemployed.
Is Gawker a satire site? Mitt Romney 'Dyed His Face Brown' to Appeal to Latino Voters
This is a story that Mitt used makeup to make his skin browner for the Univision town hall. Is this possibly for real?
Perhaps I should clarify my tenses: I highly doubt you can find too many who would **concurrently qualify **for both foodstamps and a new mortgage.
I can’t believe that.
However, one of the comments made me laugh.
Well, if they don’t have food stamps, they can just eat cake, right?
That does seem unlikely.
As for whether the tapes will have an effect, it’s still too early to tell. Election politics nuts like us have already discussed this ad nauseam, but it’ll still take awhile to see whether it really sticks as an issue with the general public, most of whom aren’t tuned in to every most immediate poll, gaffe, speech, or election issue like we are.
My guess is what I said earlier: very, very few people’s minds are really changeable at this point. It’s all about turnout and enthusiasm for your candidate. One thing the GOP has been successful with in their narrative: they’ve convinced people likely to vote GOP that another term of Obama would lead to the certain horrific destruction of the U.S. as we know it. Ridiculous, but that’s politics. It’s possible some might decide Romney is not worth voting for, and vote for a third party or just stay home, but switching to a vote for Obama is really, really unlikely.
So in the end any potentially negative effect on Romney’s campaign is going to be pretty subtle. The main negative thing is that he’s having to play defense rather than being able to build his case on his own merits (such as they are).
Romney absolutely did wear makeup on TV, because you always wear makeup on TV, unless you want to look like you’re running for the Corpse Party.
The claim that he deliberately went darker sounds like horseshit. He doesn’t look darker, it should looks like a differently lit/colored photograph. It’s plain in any photo of him that he’s very tanned.
If I were a ®, I would be having ever-increasing difficulty seeing Mitt as the heroic savior between me and catastrophy…
I, for one, am anxiously awaiting SNL’s take on this. The Romney impersonator is pretty good, not Tina Fey good but still outstanding. Should be brutal.
Why do you think major food retailers and makers spend millions of dollars lobbying in favor of food stamps? It’s a fact that they do, so how does that mesh with your theory that they don’t get any benefit from the program? Surely there’s some rational reason they would spend millions fighting for SNAP.
I was going with **SA’s **
No cake, but that’s where I got the car.
And you can’t eat cars. Or houses. Or utilities, or clothing… but… children! That’s a thought! Double acting problem solver there, eat the kids, more food for us, less food required by the family! Hmmm! Rugged individualism, taking responsibility for one’s own life, get out of your liberal dependent mindset and all that. Sounds downright pro-Romney, doesn’t it?
Lemme get to my phone here…
No, they haven’t. You can keep saying it, and it will still be false.
If this reaction from PA State Representative Dan Metcalfe is any indication, they got the subtext of Romney’s message loud and clear, and they’re not going to let it fade away.
During an interview on KDKA radio about PA’s new voter ID law, Metcalfe linked the issue with Romney’s recent comments:
It would be easy to link his “lazy” claim with certain racial stereotypes that have been used by the GOP in previous elections, but for the sake of argument let’s assume this isn’t what he means, and analyze his claim.
First off, it isn’t easy to be poor; you can’t just pay someone to watch you kids while you work, or clean your house and cook your meals. You might not be able to afford a car, making so many daily tasks that much more difficult. Romney went to college by selling some of his Dad’s stock; how many poor people wish they had that option as they scrape together their savings? Let’s face it: Money makes your life a hell of a lot easier, and gives you the means to afford true laziness.
But more to the point, this is just the flip-side of the Protestant work ethic: If I believe I deserve my riches as a gift from God for my righteous life, I must also believe that the poor have equally “earned” God’s displeasure, that somehow their poverty is their own fault. I for one reject that interpretation of how the world works–dumb luck plays way too much of a factor in the accumulation of wealth–and think it leads to the disdain for human dignitythat is the hallmark of the modern, Randian GOP.
In Social Psychology this is referred to as the “Just World Hypothesis” - it is a form of psychic insurance that reassures us that because we do right, nothing bad will happen to us.
It would have been asinine if I’d made it. Fortunately I neither said nor thought any such thing. It’s very telling to me that people such as yourself always seem to have to interject little bits of inflamatory invention to make my position look bad and your righteous. In other words you’re at a loss to oppose what I’ve actually said, so you simply lie about it. And that means there’s no point in talking to you.
Don’t accuse other posters of lying in this forum.
Yes, they have, and yes, it’s true. Two quick examples:
-
Testimony was given that grown coaches showing with boys was neither unusal nor particularly noteworthy. I said the same was likely and got called every vile name in the book and was informed in no certain terms that there was NEVER an excuse for an adult to be in a shower with a minor. The reaction of the nabobs in that thread to the courtroom testimony: crickets.
-
The main point of contention and the one for which I came in for the most criticism and insults. I held that McQueary’s description of what he saw did not support the conclusion that what he saw was rape. The jury came to the same conclusion and acquitted him of that charge. It was 1 of only 3 (out of 48) charges they acquitted him of.
And on preview, my apologies, Marley. It was inadvertent.
Drop the Penn State discussion immediately or I will start warning people.
So you deny making this statement?
My “skip a payment on their Cadillac” refers directly to you saying they are “buying… …cars”. Did you forget you said this?
ETA: glad you agree that it is asinine though