R-Money. . High Maintenance in q , til ____ I j Romney spent to not be President. Issent noting for the same result. Who' s the better buiness man now? Like . C
x
Click to expand

R-Money

High Maintenance
in q , til ____ I j Romney spent to not be President. Issent noting for the same
result. Who' s the better buiness man now?
Like . Comment' Share . sh 120 G? 12 © 3 "about an hour ago . aiy
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+2640
Views: 63086
Favorited: 140
Submitted: 11/07/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to aleggedpuppy submit to reddit

Comments(128):

[ 128 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #15 - ManicalMayhem (11/08/2012) [-]
sounds like he is... cause you know he had 800 million to spend.
#3 - quazyjash (11/08/2012) [-]
Not looking to get into a political debate, but why are people so mad that he's successful?
#44 to #3 - saladtongsofdeath (11/08/2012) [-]
i just didnt vote for him because he was trying to ban birth control pills... you know how ******* expensive condoms can get????
#19 to #3 - slyve (11/08/2012) [-]
This image has expired
I can't speak for everyone, and possibly shouldn't even try to answer that questions since I'm not from America, but i think most people aren't mad that he is successful, they are mad because he is a lying **** who says whatever puts him in the best possible light at the moment. He is absolutely inconsistent with his statements and principles, that he just looks like some rich guy who wants to be president so he and his money pals can get even richer.

I actually saw a video that showed him on several occasions, in which it was shown what kind of lying bastard he is. First he was pro-choice, then pro-life for example. That was just a few month apart.

I'm not saying people can't change their opinions, but when you run for the presidency, you should have a consistent opinion about stuff, and not change them based on what opinion will get you the most sympathies at that moment.

Also, i really really disagree with what the republican party stands for.

I'm actually glad that I'm not from America, because i think Americas political system is broken beyond repair.

Also, since i do not have any pictures that are relevant to political debates that aren't satire, have this gif of some dude groping a girl.
#21 to #19 - slyve (11/08/2012) [-]
This image has expired
I spend the last 20 minutes looking for the video i mentioned. I usually don't say "i saw this video..." when i don't have the link anymore. But i couldn't find, but i found this one which gets the same point across.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r6TA1PNG_M

This could help with understanding why so many people are against Romney.
User avatar #25 to #21 - sketchE ONLINE (11/08/2012) [-]
as pointed out in the comments of the video many of the sources cited in the video are liberal supporters. something i cant trust after al gore won a nobel prize for a movie which was discredited by the entire scientific community for beign selective with information
User avatar #28 to #25 - slyve (11/08/2012) [-]
I don't really feel qualified to have this argument. Like i said I'm not from the states and I'm sure there are a lot more things i don't know than things i do know.

It's more of a gut thing that i dislike Romney, coupled with facts i stumbled upon on the net. Including his own contradictions. He was actually stating that he was pro-choice in one video, and absolutely against abortion in the next, along some other things, but it's been some time since I've seen the video and i really can't find it anymore.

He just seems like an Opportunist to me, he says whatever will help him get what he wants. He's just incredibly dishonest, no idea if this is because he is republican, a politician, or just in general a lying ass. I just don't like him at all.

But, like i said, I'm not from the states, so I'm not the best person to argue about this.
User avatar #29 to #28 - sketchE ONLINE (11/08/2012) [-]
i still want to know know your republican issue? is it because they believe people should earn their money? that government should spend less as opposed to bring in more? let the rich (who due to the fact they make far more than everyone else and therefore pay more taxes already) make money and jobs? democrats believe in big government something america was never meant to be about. ironicly it was also a democrat who started basing campaigns off of insulting his opponent rather than proving hes right for the job.

its also very easy to show things out of context to create the image you want
User avatar #32 to #29 - slyve (11/08/2012) [-]
I'll try to answer that as good as i can. Republicans want people to keep the money they earned. Fine, i got nothing against it. But: They say taxes are too high and they don't want universal healthcare (which are, as far as i know, the main points of that statement) And that is kinda ******** . The tax rates in the US are pretty low compared against the rest of the industrialized world.

And universal healthcare? Multiple points. First off, it ******* works, proven by many countries all over the world. Secondly, the current system the US has is based on making profits, so they just pay when they absolutely have to. (Read some reports of people dying that could have easily been saved, just because the insurance company tried to weasel it's way out of paying for the treatment.) Third, Saying "i want to keep the money i earned, and everyone who can't afford healthcare has to die so i can have a few hundred bucks more each year!" is pretty cruel if you ask me, especially when most of those people could've been saved. (Of course not everyone will die, but you get my point).

Also, they seem to be hardcore when it comes to religion (some dude compared "what Obama does to Christians" to the holocaust and said it was the same thing) and another one blamed the hurricane sandy on the gays (Although I'm not entirely sure if that guy was a republican.)

Running out of characters to write, gotta stop here. Like i said, I can't guarantee all of my points are actually 100% true. But the things i heard were enough for me to dislike them. Not saying I mindlessly love the democrats, i hate most politicians equally. Many of them are dishonest bastards, but Romney was a whole new level of dishonest, even for a politician.
User avatar #131 to #32 - sketchE ONLINE (11/09/2012) [-]
universal healthcare doesnt always work. from what ive seen only the UK has a working system. lower quality of work and waiting up the ass. ive been to military doctors, which is basicly free healthcare, and civilian doctors. the civilian doctors have you in in minutes, military hours. it is actually federal law that if a doctor can save someone they have to. in most cases insurence isnt even thought of until after the procedure. the only instances where insurence would be involved in that way are long term issues such as liver replacement and other things that wont kill you immedietly.

the reason we have such low taxes is because of the fact we dont have the government paying for all of these things. i work full time for $10 an hour so before taxes i make 400 and after i make 340. im losing $60 a week to help someone else. my issue with that is most people on welfare do not need it. i regularly see people walk into my work who own a new car and plenty of cash that they use on luxuries then buy a bunch of junk food with food stamps which is meant to put food on your table because you cant get by. welfare isnt used to keep people live anymore but to buy all the luxury items people who work hard get

I identify libertarian but apparently most of my views are republican. however i hate the religious beliefs like you said but that isnt all republicans. its kind of stupid to lump a bigot into your argument about people since you know not all are that way

User avatar #136 to #131 - slyve (11/09/2012) [-]
I see. With what you said about welfare, it's understandable that people are against that. That's not what a social security net is for. I have to rely on what i know as a basis for my arguments, and the social security system in Germany works quite different it seems. I used to believe welfare was similar to the system we have here, but i guess i was wrong.

If you can't word, for whatever reason, you can apply for "Hartz 4" which will make sure you get by, but that is it, you won't be able to buy yourself a car or a new TV with that money. They will pay your rent (although only up to 300 euro a month, and that has to include everything, except electricity. you gotta pay for that yourself. And with everything i mean water, heating and the actual rent)

Then you get about 360 euro a month for food and everything else, like Electricity, your phone, internet and so on. Which isn't much.

Also, they require you to constantly look for a job and make job offers to you when they have open positions. Unless you are unfit for work (which has to be determined by multiple doctors)

That is the reason why i am so much in favor of this system. Of course there are people who try to take advantage of that system, but they don't make it easy for them, and the punishment for fraud like that is quite severe.

And yes, you're right, it is stupid of me to use one bigoted hateful person in an argument against a group that large, sorry about that. I'm only human and stuff like that infuriates me beyond reason, so I sometimes lose my objectivity. Sorry about that.
User avatar #137 to #136 - sketchE ONLINE (11/09/2012) [-]
they sound similar but not the same. there are people in the u.s. who live completely on welfare and nothing else. it also seems fraud is far too easy and no one is actully trying to stop it. a girl that i was in training with was talking about all she had to do to get it was go down to the office that issues it and say "i need food" and they handed her the card
User avatar #139 to #137 - slyve (11/09/2012) [-]
Hm, in that case I'd agree, that system needs a workover. They need to control who gets money and who doesn't, otherwise it's way too easy to.. well, just be lazy and don't do anything.
User avatar #140 to #139 - sketchE ONLINE (11/09/2012) [-]
agreed. well ave a good day i have to try and get a hold of someone renting out an apartment
User avatar #141 to #140 - slyve (11/09/2012) [-]
Alrighty then, bye and good luck to you!
#53 to #32 - rotinaj (11/08/2012) [-]
I only have health care because it comes from my job ; If it wasn't free, I wouldn't want it. I don't want to be forced to pay for a luxury.
User avatar #61 to #53 - slyve (11/08/2012) [-]
And then there are a few thousand other people who might want it, and can't afford it because they can't find jobs or don't earn enough money in their current jobs. Maybe one of them will get cancer, or catch another bad disease. Maybe their kids will get sick and they can't afford treatment.

So they have to die, no big deal. I mean, you have a few more bucks in your pocket, right?

"I don't want to spend a few bucks each year, so i am willing to let a lot of other people die." ~ Everyone who's against free healthcare.
#63 to #61 - rotinaj (11/08/2012) [-]
Whoa there. Nobody ever said that they couldn't buy healthcare.
User avatar #65 to #63 - slyve (11/08/2012) [-]
Not everyone can afford it, that's what Universal Healthcare is about. EVERYONE can get medical help when they need it. It won't make you pay for the botox in some stuck up bitches face, it will make your money help people that would suffer otherwise because they can't afford insurance themselves.

That's the whole point. Help people that couldn't help themselves otherwise. Of course there are some people that will try to take advantage of that system, but that's hardly the fault of the system. And there will be ways to make sure it won't be easy for them.
User avatar #132 to #65 - sketchE ONLINE (11/09/2012) [-]
the issue is people inflict most of these things on themselves. there are plenty of jobs but no one wants to do manuel labor they would rather sit on welfare. people will buy ciagarrettes before food. one of my friends actually bought acid before paying off his insurence. this is the kind of thing that makes me not care
#31 to #28 - anon (11/08/2012) [-]
Look into Obama and Operation Fast and Furious. one it was one of the dumbest things that we could have ever done but the fact that Obama wouldnt release the files on any of it or purposely blocked the release shows how dishonest he is.
User avatar #33 to #31 - slyve (11/08/2012) [-]
I'm not that big of an Obama fan myself, after all, he is still a politician and they pretty much all lie for a living (for some reason honest politicians are mostly hated and politicians that actually care for the people are barely known)

It's just i dislike Romney a whole lot more.
User avatar #22 to #19 - sketchE ONLINE (11/08/2012) [-]
obama is far worse in many regards. he got a lot of support in 08 by saying guantanimo should be shut down. he then praises the information he got from there. says seal team six is chaineys hit squad then again sings their praises because it makes him look good. says he wants to make jobs then makes decisions that land 80,000 american military personel out of a job.

i dont remember him ever being pro choice. hes religious and very few religious people are pro choice

i dont know what you mean particularly about "what the republican party sands for" so i cant begin to argue it

basicly obamas already saying he is going to jack up the taxes on everyone and will veto any bill reducing spending. the american system is and should be the caring capitalism it always was. where beign an individual and individual achievement is praised. the logic that you make money because of hard work and shouldnt be allowed to keep it is outright wrong. we didnt have any welfare until the great depression and the country worked just fine.

dont get me wrong i dont believe romney was the best choice but obama was by far the worst. people say bush is a war criminal for going into iraq but say obamas great for ordering the assassination of an american citizen. its sheer hypocrisy created by political parties
User avatar #112 to #3 - supermegasherman (11/08/2012) [-]
because if you're smart enough to make money, you're smart enoughto prove liberals wrong. and we just can't have that now can we?
#8 to #3 - newall (11/08/2012) [-]
because most people suspect that he'll alter tax brackets so that the extremely wealthy don't have to pay as much, thus making himself more money and the country less and raising the taxes on everyone else.
User avatar #5 to #3 - dustyshane (11/08/2012) [-]
Because Liberals are poor and hate anyone rich.

That's actually barely an exaggeration.
User avatar #7 to #5 - kingbulbasaur ONLINE (11/08/2012) [-]
Not true. My family's pretty rich and we're all fairly liberal.
User avatar #24 to #7 - dustyshane (11/08/2012) [-]
Notice the word exaggeration, and I shouldn't have to say there are exceptions, there is for anything. It was a general "fact".
User avatar #49 to #24 - CreepyNeighbor (11/08/2012) [-]
Stereotype is the word you're looking for
User avatar #55 to #49 - dustyshane (11/08/2012) [-]
There you go.
#83 to #5 - anon (11/08/2012) [-]
There is a major difference between being rich, and being rich your entire life and acting as you know what it's like for the rest of the 99%, causing you to have a completely warped sight on the economy and what the people needs.

Stop with your ******** generalization, and yes that is an exaggeration.

There are lots of rich people that the liberals don't have anything against, and why? because those rich people aren't ******* delusional. And of course you're never gonna hear about "the rich people we like" since "the rich people we hate" is what pulls attention.

User avatar #128 to #83 - dustyshane (11/08/2012) [-]
Please read my other response to that.

Also, I'm sorry.
User avatar #58 to #5 - garyleneville (11/08/2012) [-]
It's not about him being rich it's about how he brags about how he 'earned' the money despite inheriting the vast majority of it.
User avatar #62 to #58 - dustyshane (11/08/2012) [-]
While that's true, I've actually seen Liberals, just yesterday on this site in fact, say how they hate the upper-class, without a good reason of course.

what I said was a joke directed towards stereotypes, and the exaggeration bit was directed toward the comments I previously mentioned.

Basically, what I said was a joke that I accidently made it seem like I believe that, I don't really believe it, and I'm sorry.
User avatar #52 to #5 - Lawlor (11/08/2012) [-]
No, that's a huge exaggeration.
And a stereotype.

People like you are what's wrong with the world..
If less people were all "My sides opinion is perfectly justified, but YOUR sides opinion is just because you're bias and butthurt", the world could be a much happier place.

I really hope you gain some maturity and learn to respect the opinions of those who disagree with you on issues such as Politics.
User avatar #60 to #52 - dustyshane (11/08/2012) [-]
It was a joke, but I guess it didn't seem that way with the exaggeration thing.

I never said anything like what you quoted, I don't know where the **** you pulled that from, and I never exactly stated which party or what my political views, so almost everything you said you pulled out of your ass and just assumed I'm like that, though it's a true statement, I have no idea why you directed towards me.

I also do respect opinions, (again, I never bashed opinions or anything) probably more than most people, On both sides, I hate seeing mindless Liberal bashing, and mindless Conservative bashing. You may think my previous comment was considered an insult or I really mean it, I don't of course.

There are Liberals who just plain hate the rich, I actually saw comments about it yesterday, with several thumbs up. I was just making a joke but I guess it made it seem like I really thought that when I put the exaggeration thing, but I really only put that in response to the comments I saw, again, a joke.

I'm sorry you thought I did mean it, now it's just some big misunderstanding.
#123 - TwistedBamboozler (11/08/2012) [-]
People can say whatever they want about him, but it's pretty hard to deny he put up a great fight in a nearly impossible scenario. The guy has balls. He sticks fights for what he thinks is right regardless of what others think. I am an Obama fan no doubt, but I can still admire the fight Romney put up.
People can say whatever they want about him, but it's pretty hard to deny he put up a great fight in a nearly impossible scenario. The guy has balls. He sticks fights for what he thinks is right regardless of what others think. I am an Obama fan no doubt, but I can still admire the fight Romney put up.
User avatar #124 to #123 - drganja (11/08/2012) [-]
No doubt man I'm behind Obama 100% but I can more than say that Romney put up one hell of a fight and he had almost half of america on his side.
#126 to #123 - ssjlink (11/08/2012) [-]
Agreed. I was kind of disappointed when he said that he wasn't going to be running again. I would've liked to see him as a candidate in 2016 where he isn't running against an incumbent.
#71 - amsel (11/08/2012) [-]
**amsel rolled a random image posted in comment #3 at Costume Contest ** Little of the money Romney campaigned on came from his personal wealth. He sounds like a pretty good business man to me if he collected $800 million of investment on an idea that more than 50% of the country directly opposed.
#41 - apatheticalcare **User deleted account** (11/08/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #18 - leanonwut (11/08/2012) [-]
Romney didn't spend that... He raised 800m
#70 - cfeuer (11/08/2012) [-]
Probably cheer'd up poor Kerry
#127 to #72 - anon (11/08/2012) [-]
Tax the poor more ,make the rich have tax reductions and refunds...exclude the poor into **** territories,make the rich live in the best parts.Leech the poor from anything they do,sell their made stuff and make profit.

Or im talking about world politics atm.
User avatar #73 to #72 - Kellanved (11/08/2012) [-]
Inherit*
#102 to #72 - anon (11/08/2012) [-]
Isn't hard to do when your republican buddies help make it hard to make as much profit in the states so you outsource all your jobs to China...
#47 - ekesss (11/08/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#9 - stupiduploadblock (11/08/2012) [-]
High Maintenance is the **** , drum & bass all the way!
#45 - somethingsexy (11/08/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#59 - ronyx (11/08/2012) [-]
Super PACs, can raise unlimited money from individuals, corporations and labor unions. Although these groups cannot legally be tied to a candidate, several of the most-active ones are run or advised by former associates or campaign staff.

Restore Our Future, Inc. $88.6m
American Crossroads $84.6m
Republican National Committee $40.5m
Americans for Prosperity $33.5m
National Rifle Association Of America Political Victory Fund $7.4m
#37 - doyoulikeapizza ONLINE (11/08/2012) [-]
**doyoulikeapizza rolled a random image posted in comment #256 at women logic at its finest **
User avatar #116 - blamie ONLINE (11/08/2012) [-]
Just gonna leave this here: Obama: Raised $934.0m and spent $852.9m
And the man who you think "Spent 800m+," Romney, raised $881.8m, and spent $752.3m. So, with about an equal volume of commercials, propaganda, and staff, Romney did it for a million dollars less than Obama.
#111 - Yardie (11/08/2012) [-]
MFW people debating about Romney/Obama economic policy

They're both almost the same thing. Government gives people free **** so everybody will vote for them. Romney just wanted to cut taxes on top of it. God forbid we cut spending on **** we can't afford as a nation.

Neither of them honestly care about the well-being of the American Economy. Democratic Two-Party System at it's finest.
User avatar #10 - CRONIK (11/08/2012) [-]
And how close did mitt come to becoming president?
Exactly
#11 to #10 - anon (11/08/2012) [-]
Well he only got 38% of the Electoral Votes, and got 48% of the popular vote
User avatar #14 to #11 - CRONIK (11/08/2012) [-]
How much did the guy get that posted that status?
#35 to #14 - smanfan (11/08/2012) [-]
What does it matter? The point is that in the end, Mitt Romney spent hundreds of millions of dollars more for the same result that he got, and therefore that makes the OP a smarter investor
#74 to #35 - anon (11/08/2012) [-]
He raised the money ******** .
User avatar #46 to #35 - unhappyspanners (11/08/2012) [-]
A better businessman than the multi-millionaire... Okay.
#51 to #46 - rotinaj (11/08/2012) [-]
**** off, it's a joke
User avatar #67 to #51 - unhappyspanners (11/08/2012) [-]
You **** off. The guy I replied to didn't seem to get it and he's dumb.
#107 - nightroller (11/08/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #79 - joemand (11/08/2012) [-]
Lol 4 years from now the economy will be even worst off than now. Then what? Oh let me guess, everyone will just vote for Republican. Then the same cycle will happen vise versa.

People really are stupid.
User avatar #89 to #79 - drewbridge (11/08/2012) [-]
I'm voting for the guy who wants to cut spending and is for state rights. Democrats aren't notorious for either.
#103 to #89 - ssurtrebor **User deleted account** (11/08/2012) [-]
State rights are the best idea. Look at the time between 1860 and 1960.
#87 to #79 - whateveridontneed (11/08/2012) [-]
Please, none of us really know anything about the economy. Unless you have a ph.d in economics and all the government data, stop talking **** because none of us knows. This is one of the reasons why Plato opposes democracy, why should the leader be chosen by a bunch of idiots (us) who don't know anything?
#122 - Pikachuuu (11/08/2012) [-]
just gonna leave this here..
[ 128 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)