is it me or at 0:06 he actually realized what he had said and almost panicked, but decided to stick with it?

I reckon you are right. That's going to turn out to be a tightly edited sound bite that will haunt him in the coming months.

I think he meant to say 'I like fingering people', which many politicians indeed enjoy doing to their interns.

>> ^notarobot:

I'm looking forward to eleven more months of Romney videos.


Hell, you'll also be seeing this one over and over again 11 for months too.

It'll just snowball out from here into long montages.

Corporations are people my friend, I like firing people, I bet you $10,000 bucks...

Golden oldies will return! Who let the dogs out!

All you have to do is look at his record with Bain Capital. This is probably the only point on which he's been ideologically consistent throughout his entire career.

I actually get pissed off at this kind of thing. What is wrong with saying you like being able to fire people who give you poor service?

I'm not pro-Romney or pro-Obama. But this clip, taken out of context, is NOT a reason to oppose Romney.

In order for one to be fired, one first must have a job. obamanomics brilliantly skips the middleman. No one hired = no one fired!

Two trillion dollars. Two trillion dollars in the hands of American consumers, patiently waiting for the Supreme Court obamacare verdict and the marxist buffoon to be kicked out.

>> ^quantumushroom:

In order for one to be fired, one first must have a job. obamanomics brilliantly skips the middleman. No one hired = no one fired!
Two trillion dollars. Two trillion dollars in the hands of American consumers, patiently waiting for the Supreme Court obamacare verdict and the marxist buffoon to be kicked out.


When Obama gets re-elected, I am going to open a nice bottle of single malt, pour myself a glass and add a little drop of water. As I do this, I will imagine the water is your tears and I will smile contentedly.

to be fair, he did say "I like to be able to fire people" and that's basically the American Consumer mentality right there. i.e. you fired the cable company because a competitor came in. Yay another 'controversy,' let's forget about the substance. etc. etc. etc.

not that he isn't the guy who fired your dad(daily show)

Now, try watching what preceded that sentence for context. I dare you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1y6O1MQbZs

Mitt's campaign still holds the record for running the most egregiously out of context quote ever in an attack ad on Obama. But any time I see editing like this it just makes me dislike whoever cut out the rest, even when Mitt's the victim.

The problem with this quote for Romney is that ultimately it's a Freudian slip.

Yes, he was trying to make some sort of point about consumers being able to choose to take their business elsewhere, but the way he chose to frame that was in terms of taking joy in firing people for not pleasing him.

That reveals a lot that's ugly about his character. It also really drives home the whole "he looks like the guy who just laid off your dad" vibe that has been dogging him throughout his whole political career.

Oh, and the in-context argument is fucking hilarious, because basically he's extolling the virtues of how awesome Obamacare is. If people get fucked over by their insurance company after they get sick, thanks to Obamacare they can just switch insurance companies without fear of being rejected over a preexisting condition. But Romney lies and says Obamacare means the opposite, because Republicans lie about everything all the time.

Well, unless they make a Freudian slip and accidentally tell the truth.

I think you have to really already not like Mitt in order to get too worked up about this. Even out of context it's not that offensive or entertaining, and I think "government firing people" is actually what a lot of the Republican base wants anyways.

In general, it baffles me that the Republicans can't find better candidates; but then again look at the hoops you have to jump through. Romney is a perfect example; as NetRunner says above, it's clear he supports a health plan substantively the same as Obama's - but he HAS TO say he hates it to have any hope. They have to walk a tightrope on social issues and toe a very narrow line on economics. Pander, pander, pander, never be candid, never just say what you think.

Well, except Ron Paul. That guy doesn't pander. He just is. Unfortunately for him, I don't think what he is is what quite enough people want for him to actually be elected. I wish there was Ron Paul equivalents at a few different places on the political spectrum. How refreshing it would be for people to be picking the candidate who actually agreed with them, rather than whoever pretends the best (or presents themselves the best, like this is bloody American Idol).

OK ok ok Hoooooooold IT. The quote is NOT "I like to fire people." It is actually, "I like being ABLE to fire people." This is in fact an entirely different idea and one perfectly in line with basic free market ideas etc etc. Guess what? I'd like THE ABILITY to fire people who give me bad service too, and I am anything but a republican. If there's one thing I dislike, its something out of context. If there's anything I dislike more, its something that was misquoted and THEN taken out of context. Get it straight before you start taking the moral high ground. Which to be fair, isn't to hard considering the current crop of Republican candidates but it must still at least be the correct stance and not something cobbled together out of falsehoods and misinformation.

It'd be refreshing if people would want public policy to be about the public good and not about animosity for the other tribe. It'd also be nice if people on the right had even the slightest grasp on reality.

The whole thing about Romney and healthcare is indeed a perfect example -- Romney should be proud of Romneycare, and should be trying to take credit for Obamacare because people on the right and left should consider that a reason to vote for him. The left because it's a massively empowering system for the average man, and the right because it takes us a long way towards getting a properly functioning market in the healthcare sector, rather than one rife with perverse incentives and government subsidies of big business.

But instead the people who like to vote Republican think that Obamacare is some scary Soviet-style takeover of American society, and that the Republican nominee will be the shining knight to save the world from this threat. And of course, they think that because the Republican party has told them that, and told them that anyone who says different is "liberal" and therefore the enemy of freedom.

I'm pretty tribal myself these days, but my tribe is "sanity", and I'm a partisan against insanity.

And Ron Paul...Paul clearly plays for the other side in that fight.

>> ^jmzero:

In general, it baffles me that the Republicans can't find better candidates; but then again look at the hoops you have to jump through. Romney is a perfect example; as NetRunner says above, it's clear he supports a health plan substantively the same as Obama's - but he HAS TO say he hates it to have any hope. They have to walk a tightrope on social issues and toe a very narrow line on economics. Pander, pander, pander, never be candid, never just say what you think.
...
How refreshing it would be for people to be picking the candidate who actually agreed with them, rather than whoever pretends the best.

How is this even relevant to the video? I'm surprised he didn't say that the bungee cord that snapped on that Australian woman was Obama's fault.

>> ^quantumushroom:

In order for one to be fired, one first must have a job. obamanomics brilliantly skips the middleman. No one hired = no one fired!
Two trillion dollars. Two trillion dollars in the hands of American consumers, patiently waiting for the Supreme Court obamacare verdict and the marxist buffoon to be kicked out.

True. I do have to agree that even out of context it's not that horrible. It's just more of the same. I actually feel bad for them.

They constantly have to cover up how the really feel about stuff and sugar coat it because what they really want would completely shift the world away from the republicans, assuming that isn't happening already.

"I hate poor people because I honestly believe poor people are only poor because they're lazy" gets translated into "coddling them isn't helping them"

"I'm a greedy fucker and I don't care that if income was distributed more equally, I'd still be extremely well off, but we'd *all* live better lives. I got mine, so fuck you." gets translated into "Don't tax the job creators"

When you constantly have to cover up how you really feel about stuff because you KNOW that would turn more people away. Maybe it's time to re-evaluate how you think stuff should work.

If it really is a Christian nation as they like to claim, why do they have to hide it? Why DON'T we have more religion in the public sector if that's really what everyone wants?

If these people really were merely responding to the will of the people as our elected officials are supposed to do. Why do they have to cover up what they really think?

When your policies simply don't reflect reality and you have to obfuscate and sugercoat what you really want in order to not be laughed out of the campaign. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that what you want isn't what the rest of the world wants.

So yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb and say:

- I DON'T like to fire people.
- I DON'T like fucking with people's livelihoods.
- I DON'T like dangling the threat of poverty and throwing people out onto the streets as a method making them conform to what I want.
- I DON'T like seeing people get more and more worse off while I see record profits.

It's a false choice between what you're saying and what Romney is saying. I recently "fired" Comcast and switched to Verizon for internet and cable. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Do I want to see Comcast employees get fired per se? No. Messing with their livelihoods? No. But they did have crap customer service, and they screwed with me on my bill.

That's what Romney is talking about. He's talking about the freedom to fire those who aren't providing adequate service.

This is the posterchild of why these kinds of quotes piss me off. He never intended it to be that he gets kicks by firing the average person. He was talking about liking to have the ability to fire his health care provider if they don't provide adequate service. The ONLY ways that interpretation can be made is if you're partisan, or hear it being taken completely out of context. Meanwhile, what's missed is honestly a potentially good point made by Romney that there are advantages to keeping health care in the private sector that's worth discussing further. Why not actually talk about that idea more in depth?! No, let's just plaster Romney's big gaffe, talk about it being a gaffe, why it's a gaffe, blah blah blah. It's idiotic.

Look, I'm not pro-Romney, and I know the Romney camp does the same thing to Obama. I just hate it when anyone does it because it impedes an honest exchange of ideas. I very very sincerely doubt Romney wants to fire people for record profits strictly. The simple fact of the matter is a business can't exist long term unless they're profitable. I get really sick and tired of people throwing his time at Bain as a job liquidator as if it's a bad thing. Did he accomplish what the business plan was very well? Yes. That's an asset because he clearly is competent in that regard. Does that mean he'll be a good President? Not necessarily because gov't doesn't and shouldn't run like a business, because it's chief goal isn't profit. I'd look more at his record as Governor of MA for more about that.

I just wonder... what happened to honesty?

>> ^VoodooV:

Why do they have to cover up what they really think?
When your policies simply don't reflect reality and you have to obfuscate and sugercoat what you really want in order to not be laughed out of the campaign. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that what you want isn't what the rest of the world wants.
So yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb and say:
- I DON'T like to fire people.
- I DON'T like fucking with people's livelihoods.
- I DON'T like dangling the threat of poverty and throwing people out onto the streets as a method making them conform to what I want.
- I DON'T like seeing people get more and more worse off while I see record profits.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/12-7?print

Do you think Romneyomics will be better? >> ^quantumushroom:

In order for one to be fired, one first must have a job. obamanomics brilliantly skips the middleman. No one hired = no one fired!
Two trillion dollars. Two trillion dollars in the hands of American consumers, patiently waiting for the Supreme Court obamacare verdict and the marxist buffoon to be kicked out.