The Romney File

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Aug 4, 2011.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,882

    John Sununu, Romney spokesperson and former Republican governor, says former Secretary of State Collin Powell (a Republican) is endorsing President Obama yet again just because of their shared race. What it nincompoop. And they wonder why people think they are stupid.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dorsed-Obama-hes-black.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,882
    My problems with Romney;

    1) His budget numbers don’t add up. Romney promises to balance the nation’s budget – eliminating the current trillion dollar budget deficit by reducing federal income some 5 trillion dollars with tax cuts, largely for the wealthy, all the while increasing federal defense spending 2 trillion dollars and not cutting any entitlement spending.

    2) Romney keeps changing his positions on virtually every issue, sometimes by the day and sometimes by the minute.

    3) Romney lies frequently. Few if any of the things Romney says are true, even the basic facts (e.g. More than 50% of the Obama’s stimulus money was invested in failed companies; the real number, the truthful number is 8 % compared to Romney’s investment failure rate at Bane 22%, Obama is batting near 100). How can anyone trust a man who lies so prolifically? Deception seems to be Romney's first name.

    4) The man has not demonstrated any semblance of a moral backbone or leadership. Instead he has been shamelessly pandering to any special interest group that would have him (e.g. Tea Party). This is particularly problematic should Romney become POTUS because he would likely appoint some justices to the US Supreme Court. Without a moral backbone Romney would not be able to stand against the special interests that have funded his campaign and we would be left with a government that serves the few at the expense of the many just like during the reign of George II.

    5) Romney is very secretive, hiding virtually everything. When won’t release his taxes as has become the customer for presidential candidates. When governor of Massachusetts he purchased all the hard drives of his staff and took them with him. What is Romney hiding or is he just paranoid? If he is paranoid, I don’t want him holding the most powerful job in the land.

    6) Romney has for the last 5+ years advocated returning to the same economic and foreign policies advocated by George Junior and his fellow neocons. Those policies did not work well for George II or the nation and will not likely work any better a second time around.

    The bottom line here is that Romney has no credibility other than being exceptionally secretive.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,706
    Homosexuals beware..

    A revolting title, but apt when one considers Romney's actions while Governor.

    Murray Waas, of the Boston Globe, did some digging and what he found was, well, to put it mildly, astoundingly repulsive.

    Stemming back to 2003, when gay marriage was legalised in Massachusetts, an order was also made to adjust the birth certificates of children born to homosexual couples, which would have the "father" be replaced with "father/other parent" to prevent discrimination and issues for homosexual couples who have children. However, Romney did not agree with this order and refused to comply, because as Waas points out, its "proposal symbolized unacceptable changes in traditional family structures".

    So Romney took a different tack, one which was directly advised against by the Department of Public Health lawyer because of the issues that could arise for those children born of homosexual parents, not to mention that it would stigmatise them as being somewhat different or abnormal. His proposal?

    He rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan and insisted that his top legal staff individually review the circumstances of every birth to same-sex parents. Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to cross out by hand the word “father’’ on individual birth certificates, and then write in “second parent,’’ in ink.

    Divisions between the governor’s office and state bureaucrats over the language on the forms and details about the extraordinary effort by the Republican governor to prevent routine recording of births to gay parents are contained in state records obtained by the Globe this month.

    --------------------------------------

    Crossouts and handwritten alterations constituted “violations of existing statutes’’ and harmed “the integrity of the vital record-keeping system,’’ the deputy general counsel of the department, Peggy Wiesenberg, warned in a confidential Dec. 13, 2004, memo to Mark Nielsen, Romney’s general counsel.

    The changes also would impair law enforcement and security efforts in a post-9/11 world, she said, and children with altered certificates would be likely to “encounter [difficulties] later in life . . . as they try to register for school, or apply for a passport or a driver’s license, or enlist in the military, or register to vote.”


    Think about it for a moment.

    Romney demanded that children born of homosexual couples have their birth certificates altered by hand, after getting permission from Romney's office - which would physically cross out the word father and write in, by hand, the word "second parent".

    And that would be the child's birth certificate. Stigma anyone?

    And this is just for homosexual women in a same sex marriage. Homosexual males had to go even further than that..

    Gay men seeking parental rights were required to take a different route, by obtaining a court order. By law, birth certificates must be issued within 10 days of birth, and in some instances, those deadlines were not met.

    I emphasised "marriage" above because in one instance, Romney's office rejected an application to change the word "father" to "other parent" because the couple were not married. And in another, the application was denied because the couple had requested the word "wife" be placed on the certificate instead of "other parent".

    In one instance, in which a couple asked that the handwritten alteration for the second parent say “wife” instead of second parent, the request was denied. In another, Leske refused to allow a birth certificate to be issued listing a same-sex couple as the parents because they were not married.

    It is unfathomable to me that this actually occurred during his tenure as Governor. And he deemed this acceptable. But it only served to show is true feelings towards homosexuals in general.


    In 2005, the state’s association of town clerks garnered some attention when it complained publicly about the absence of updated forms, calling handwritten changes inappropriate.

    At that time, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said that the Registry of Vital Records had not changed the birth certificate form because such a change required an act of the state Legislature.

    That assertion was contradicted by Wiesenberg, the Department of Public Health lawyer, who told Romney’s lawyers the previous year that authority to make the changes rested with the Department of Public Health.

    The paper trail suggests other factors were at work beyond a lack of legislative action, and Romney’s public statements left no doubt that he was opposed to marriage and parenting by same-sex couples.

    After presenting their proposal for revised forms to Romney’s chief of staff Beth Myers in May 2004, Department of Public Health officials were told by a Romney staff lawyer via e-mail that “there appear to be many complicated issues that should be discussed with many different communities before the changes are made.’’

    The next month, Romney delivered remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington in which he decried the state Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling and its effect on child-rearing. He outlined his misgivings about the request from the Registry of Vital Records.

    “The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother,’’ Romney said in his prepared remarks. “What should be the ideal for raising a child? Not a village, not ‘parent A’ and ‘parent B,’ but a mother and a father.’’

    Romney also warned about the societal impact of gay parents raising children. “Scientific studies of children raised by same-sex couples are almost nonexistent,’’ he said. “It may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole.’’

    So stigmatising them is a better solution?

    Right..

    And yes, his attitudes gets worse. As Signorile from the Huffington Post remarked, when discussing this particular article, Romney was not afraid of showing his bigotry towards homosexuals even when face to face with them:

    Romney hadn't even previously fathomed that gay people had children. Boston Spirit magazine reported last month that when gay activists met with him in his office in 2004, as Romney was backing a failed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the state, Romney remarked, "I didn't know you had families." Julie Goodridge, lead plaintiff in the landmark case that won marriage rights for gays and lesbians before the Supreme Judicial Court, asked what she should tell her 8-year-old daughter about why the governor would block the marriage of her parents. According to Goodridge, Romney responded,"I don't really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don't you just tell her the same thing you've been telling her the last eight years."

    Romney's retort enraged a speechless Goodridge; he didn't care, and by referring to her biological daughter as "adopted," it was clear he hadn't even been listening. By the time she was back in the hallway, she was reduced to tears. "I really kind of lost it," says Goodridge. "I've never stood before someone who had no capacity for empathy."

    Romney, the President for all Americans. Except if you are int he 47% and homosexuals of course..
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,882
    Romney is putting on a big show these days, trying to give the impression that he is reasonable and mainstream and telling lots of lies in the process. Romney is trying hide the "severely conservative" Mitt he claimed to be just a few months ago.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2012
  8. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    I want you to acknowledge that it is working for him very well. well, you already said so...

    What works best in American politics? Lying...
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    Ding ding ding! Romney is going to win, thread over.
     
  10. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    ElectricFetus

    Rmoney already knows that he and Lyin' are toast. Even if he manages to win the popular vote he has too many racists and Rednecks in the solidly Republican third world states, not enough sane people in the states that matter. Obama wins this going away in the Electoral College, sweet revenge on W and his near identical situation(Gore won the popular vote by over one half million votes). Either way Obama gets four more.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Not according to the Electoral College forecast. Nationwide polls are meaningless. Statewide polls are the shit, but only in swing states. Nobody cares for example if Mittens go up in Texas, because Texas always goes Republican. In short, only OH, FL and VA count.

    The EC forecast is still for Obama by 45 or so electors. Keep your fingers crossed...

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
     
  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    Look these are the same people that elected bush, twice! Romneys election is assured in my mind as a psychological protection for when it does happen, if Romney loses I will be overjoyed but by accepting is victory as inevitable I won't feel so bad when he wins.
     
  13. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    To credit the American people, Bush lost the popular vote both times. So in a way, he was never really elected by the American people. The first time it was the stupid EC and the FL shenanigans, the second time the stolen OH votes.
     
  14. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,938
    and considering he predicted the last election almost perfectly I'm going to trust him
     
  15. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    No he won the popular the second time.

    Trust is to say "rip my heart out, please!"
     
  16. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    I thought the OH stolen votes would have changed that, but I looked it up. W had 3 million more votes overall, and I don't think they stole 1.5 million votes in OH. In OH 1% was about 60K votes and W won by 2%, although exit votes were for Kerry by 4%.

    http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPoll.pdf

    So anyway, they only needed to steal about 3% or just under 200K votes. I stand corrected...

    P.S.: Of course we are assuming that they didn't steal votes in other States.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,882
  18. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I'm no fan of Romney but this is slanted.
    Why is it always slanted? Slanting interpretations is exactly why politics becomes a hot topic.

    He said raising debt to be dumped on our grandkids was immoral.

    Now, I'm not saying I agree with Romney on FEMA. I have no plans to vote for Romney. I do not like Romney or his politics.

    But Democrats slant interpretation one way. Republicans slant it the other way and both of you guys claim to be presenting the Truth™!
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,882
    Romney was asked directly about funding FEMA, and you saw his response. He clearly stated he wanted to transfer FEMA to the states. Which means there would no longer be a FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Romney went on to equate FEMA spending with the federal deficit which he clearly labeled as immoral.

    So under a Romney administration there would be no FEMA to assist the states in an emergency (e.g. Hurricane Sandy). I think you are bending over backwards here. Now Romney is denying he said what he what he clearly said here. But then, that is what Romney has always done. That is why they call him etch-a-sketch Romney. In an earlier time, he would have been called a flip-flopper.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2012
  20. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Yes, I saw that.
    I also saw claims that he wanted to abolish funding for disaster relief entirely.
    I also saw claims that he believes FEMA, itself, is immoral. Is that accurate? No- it is slanted.
    He said he believes that the rising debt is what is immoral.

    Again, I don't agree with his position. But I don't agree with slanting tactics simply because people disagree.

    I see these debates in politics rage on and on and on and this is why: Slants. It's not just you. You're just the one who got picked on because I happened to already have seen the video.

    Sure people will interpret things. But in Politics Discussions, it's just so blatant and 'in your face.'
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,513
    Badger, Badger, Badger

    Romney Campaign Gives Poll Watchers Incorrect Information

    In September, rumors circulated in liberal quarters that the Romney/Ryan campaign was conceding Wisconsin. While this was not entirely true, we now know why the Republican nominee did so little to counter the suggestion: Romney/Ryan cannot win Wisconsin, so they intend to steal it. Scott Keyes explains:

    Documents from a recent Romney poll watcher training obtained by ThinkProgress contain several misleading or untrue claims about the rights of Wisconsin voters. A source passed along the following packet of documents, which was distributed to volunteers at a Romney campaign training in Racine on October 25th. In total, six such trainings were held across the state in the past two weeks.

    One blatant falsehood occurs on page 5 of the training packet, which informed poll watchers that any "person [who] has been convicted of treason, a felony, or bribery" isn't eligible to vote. This is not true. Once a Wisconsin voter who has been convicted of a felony completes his or her sentence, that person is once again eligible to vote.

    The training also encouraged volunteers to deceive election workers and the public about who they were associated with. On page 3 of the packet, Romney poll workers were instructed to hide their affiliation with the campaign and told to sign in at the polls as a "concerned citizen" instead. As Kristina Sesek, Romney's legal counsel who just graduated from Marquette Law School last year, explained, "We're going to have you sign in this election cycle as a 'concerned citizen.' We're just trying to alleviate some of the animosity of being a Republican observer up front."

    This packet could cause major problems if Republican observers across the state try to enforce such wrong and misleading information on Election Day. Even if they simply slow the voting process down, this could discourage voters waiting in line and drive drown turnout.

    There really isn't hiding behind any pretense of mistake, here. The Romney campaign has been caught instructing their poll workers incorrectly. And, really, if the excuse is that nobody in a Romney-organized campaign could be bothered to assemble, review, and communicate the law correctly, well, one wonders what a Romney administration would bring.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Keyes, Scott. "Romney Campaign Training Poll Watchers To Mislead Voters In Wisconsin". ThinkProgress. October 30, 2012. ThinkProgress.org. October 30, 2012. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/30/1106961/romney-wisconsin-poll-watchers/
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,513
    Romney v. Reality: Chrysler Responds to Republican Lie

    Romney v. Reality: Chrysler Responds to Republican Lie

    Last week, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney got one wrong:

    Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney told a rally in northern Ohio on Thursday night that Chrysler was considering moving production of its Jeep vehicles to China, apparently reacting to incorrect reports circulating online.

    "I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state Jeep — now owned by the Italians — is thinking of moving all production to China," Romney said at a rally in Defiance, Ohio, home to a General Motors powertrain plant. "I will fight for every good job in America. I'm going to fight to make sure trade is fair, and if it's fair America will win."

    Romney was apparently responding to reports Thursday on right-leaning blogs that misinterpreted a recent Bloomberg News story earlier this week that said Chrysler, owned by Italian automaker Fiat SpA, is thinking of building Jeeps in China for sale in the Chinese market.

    The Bloomberg story, though accurate, "has given birth to a number of stories making readers believe that Chrysler plans to shift all Jeep production to China from North America, and therefore idle assembly lines and U.S. work force. It is a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats," Chrysler spokesman Gualberto Ranieri said.

    "Let's set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It's simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world's largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation."

    The Bloomberg story, however, sparked the confusion in the first paragraph of the story, saying Chrysler planned to return Jeep output to China "and may eventually make all of its models in that country."

    But the reporter included Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia, later in the story referring to adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China.


    (Shepardson)

    Chrysler responded on Thursday:

    Let's set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It's simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world's largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation. A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.

    (Ranieri)

    The Romney campaign, which has previously declared that it will not be constrained by fact checkers, responded to the issue by reiterating its argument in a television advertisement:

    Late last week, Mitt Romney ran into a little trouble on one of his biggest vulnerabilities. Campaigning in Ohio, the Republican said he'd seen a story that Jeep may be moving "all production to China." Romney wasn't telling the truth, as Chrysler itself made clear.

    When most candidates get caught telling a falsehood like this, they have decide how best to minimize the damage, possibly with an apology. Romney, however, plays by his own set of rules -- he turned the falsehood into a television ad airing in Ohio ....

    .... Asked to defend the transparently deceptive ad, the Romney campaign referred Sam Stein to the Bloomberg News article the candidate referenced last week. But as everyone, including Romney and his aides, now knows, that's the right's interpretation of the article is wrong. But therein lies the trick: the Republican campaign just doesn't care.


    (Benen)

    Today, word emerged that the Romney campaign is expanding that advert delivery by around a hundred thousand dollars.

    Mitt Romney's new television ad suggesting that the auto bailout will result in American jeep jobs getting shipped to China has been widely pilloried by news organizations, both nationally and in Ohio. The Romney campaign's response: It is expanding the ad campaign.

    A Dem source familiar with ad buy info tells me that the Romney campaign has now put a version of the spot on the radio in Toledo, Ohio — the site of a Jeep plant. The buy is roughly $100,000, the source says.

    The move seems to confirm that the Romney campaign is making the Jeep-to-China falsehood central to its final push to turn things around in the state. The Romney campaign has explicitly said in the past that it will not let fact checking constrain its messaging, so perhaps it's not surprising that it appears to be expanding an ad campaign based on a claim that has been widely pilloried by fact checkers.

    The move represents a gamble on Romney's part. The audacity of this falsehood makes it easier for the Obama camp to raise doubts about Romney's character, integrity, and honesty — and to make the case that Romney not only failed to support the bailout when Ohio needed it; he's now lying extensively to cover it up. Yesterday in Ohio, Joe Biden slammed the Romney camp by saying: "Have they no shame?"


    (Sargent)

    The Republican presidential campaign's insistence on falsehood has prompted Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne to get involved:

    Chrysler Group LLC CEO Sergio Marchionne rejected an assertion from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that Chrysler is planning on moving Jeep production to China.

    "I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China," Marchionne said in an email to employees Tuesday, a copy of which was obtained by The Detroit News.

    In fact, he said the company will continue to expand Jeep manufacturing in this country, noting the automaker has added thousands of jobs in the United States to build additional Jeep vehicles.

    "Jeep is one of our truly global brands with uniquely American roots. This will never change. So much so that we committed that the iconic Wrangler nameplate, currently produced in our Toledo, Ohio, plant, will never see full production outside the United States," Marchionne said. "Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand. It is inaccurate to suggest anything different."

    Romney falsely suggested in a speech Thursday that the automaker was considering moving all Jeep production to China. The statement was apparently based on right-leaning blogs that misinterpreted a Bloomberg News story.


    (Shepardson and Hoffman)

    But the Romney campaign's Jeep lie has had some effect Republicans might consider favorable. Jim Rutenberg and Jeremy W. Peters reported yesterday, for The New York Times:

    Bruce Baumhower, the president of the United Auto Workers local that oversees the major Jeep plant here, said Mr. Romney's initial comments on moving production to China drew a rash of calls from members concerned about their jobs. When he informed them Chrysler was, in fact, is expanding its Jeep operation here, he said in an interview, "The response has been, 'That's pretty pitiful.'"

    So at least they managed to unsettle some union workers; that ought to count as a plus in Romney's tally.

    But one might wonder what Romney and the Republicans are hoping to accomplish by simply lying through their teeth. It is as if they have considered the idea that people don't trust politicians, thrown caution to the wind, and decided to take advantage of that distrust by lying ceaselessly. After all, lies are lies are lies. That is to say, if one has a perspective on facts that another disagrees with, it is the moral equivalent of willfully asserting something completely untrue°.

    And if one wonders whether or not that works, stay tuned. Election Day is a week away, and then we get to find out whether voter cynicism is so deeply seeded that people will elect pure dishonesty because, hell, it's just another politician.

    Mitt Romney stands on one side of a gaping chasm; reality itself stands on the other. Will the Republican nominee bridge the gap, or will voters reward their gamble that it doesn't really matter?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° the moral equivalent of willfully asserting something completely untrue — Please see #3001380/577 for more on this purported equivalence:

    ... certain sleights of reality are deeply seeded in the American culture. Sales? Law? Politics? The art of persuasion in our cultural history relies on a certain amount of smoke and mirrors. To wit:

    • If you want to sell me a car, perhaps you'll tell me about its fuel efficiency. Perhaps you'll tell me about the airbags. Or the sound system. Or its skidpad rating. And it's likely that you won't mention the statistics on the damn thing bursting into flames unless I ask directly; even then, you'll try to downplay the problem. That's how sales work.

    • What isn't considered ethical is to slander your competitor by accusing their product of having a propensity for bursting into flames when, in fact, it doesn't suffer that same problem.​

    In truth, I don't really think the difference is difficult to discern.​

    Works Cited:

    Shepardson, David. "Romney picks up incorrect story about Jeep production moving to China". The Detroit News. October 26, 2012. DetroitNews.com. October 30, 2012. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...y--Chrysler-may-move-Jeep-production-to-China

    Ranieri, Gualberto. "Jeep in China". Chrysler Blog. October 25, 2012. Blog.ChryslerLLC.com. October 30, 2012. http://blog.chryslerllc.com/blog.do?id=1932&p=entry

    Benen, Steve. "Relying on a foundation of falsehoods". The Maddow Blog. October 29, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. October 30, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/29/14779508-relying-on-a-foundation-of-falsehoods

    Sargent, Greg. "Romney expands false Jeep-to-China ad campaign". The Plum Line. October 30, 2012. WashingtonPost.com. October 30, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...9e8a986-229d-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

    Shepardson, David and Bryce G. Hoffman. "Marchionne: Jeep production not headed to China". The Detroit News. October 30, 2012. DetroitNews.com. October 30, 2012. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...O/Marchionne-Jeep-production-not-headed-China

    Rutenberg, Jim and Jeremy W. Peters. "G.O.P. Turns Fire on Obama Pillar, the Auto Bailout". The new York Times. October 29, 2012. NYTimes.com. October 30, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/us/politics/gop-turns-fire-on-obama-pillar-auto-bailout.html

    See Also:

    Marchionne, Sergio. "Marchionne's letter on Jeep production in U.S." The Detroit News. October 30, 2012. DetroitNews.com. October 30, 2012. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121030/AUTO0101/210300401
     
  23. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    Law suit after the election? At this point couldn't this be seen as damaging to some extent on the company? At least in time and resources putting out needless and stupid fires.

    The first time was typical Romney, but repeating it to the point where the CEO has to re-correct him?
     

Share This Page