Mitt Romney (Effectively Says) “I’m Rich, Biatch!”

Romney is rich, biatch!. Thanks for letting us know. Via Yahoo News:

Mitt Romney sat down with Megyn Kelly Wednesday afternoon and had some strong words for the Fox News host. When pressed on questions that his wealth makes him out of touch with Americans, Romney refuted Kelly with a touch of irritation. “Megyn, guess what, I made a lot of money. I’ve been very successful. I’m not going to apologize for that. I know the DNC tries to push this out and they get it on the mainstream media networks and that’s where you guys see it and everybody laughs about it. Because, in this country, we want someone who can help other people become successful.”

28 Comments on "Mitt Romney (Effectively Says) “I’m Rich, Biatch!”"

  1. Liam_McGonagle | Mar 15, 2012 at 1:13 pm |

    You know, the most offensive part of this whole thing wasn’t even anything Romney said, just that garish gold tooth he flashed during the grin at 0:18.

    • Mamagriff50 | Mar 15, 2012 at 1:19 pm |

      OMG!!! Mitts got mouth bling.

      • Liam_McGonagle | Mar 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm |

        And like any other Yakuza or Russian mobster, I’m sure he’s got dragon tattoos scrolling up and down the length of his arms and torso.  That’s why he always wears wrist-length, opaque dress shirts, to hide ’em.

  2. Mamagriff50 | Mar 15, 2012 at 1:16 pm |

    It’s not that he’s “RICH”, it’s that hes so out of touch with the American people (the blue collar working man).

    • Hadrian999 | Mar 15, 2012 at 1:22 pm |

       america isn’t really blue collar anymore, blue collar jobs, jobs where hard work equals good pay, are being actively destroyed

      • Liam_McGonagle | Mar 15, 2012 at 7:27 pm |

        Okay–but would you accept “iron collar” as a substitute term?  You know, as in “manacle”?

      • Disinfo_censors_dissent | Mar 15, 2012 at 10:34 pm |

         >blue collar jobs, jobs where hard work equals good pay, are being actively destroyed

        The unions in many cases got arrogant and killed themselves.

        Early in the Reagan administration, the air traffic controllers wanted to go on strike for higher wages during a recession. The type of strike they wanted to do was specifically illegal (FDR passed the law) and furthermore violated their contract. They wanted to hold American travel and commerce hostage to get more money. Reagan called their bluff. And guess what? All those highly-trained professionals with years of experience were replaced by temps, with no major increase in accidents or delays. By their greed, the air traffic controllers proved their irrelevance.

        And my dad was a steelworker, so I saw the collapse of that blue-collar industry up close and personal in the 1980s and ’90s. Due to new technology, the price of steel dropped worldwide. But the unions refused admit reality, were reluctant to adapt and change, and behaved as if it was still 1968 and they had the power to dictate terms. They didn’t. The old business model was unprofitable, and the union collapsed from inside.

        • Hadrian999 | Mar 15, 2012 at 10:53 pm |

           fault is irrelevant, the fact is hard work only gets you a poverty line living these days, if you aren’t grandfathered in on the tiered contracts, pretending that the average american is still blue collar is false, people have to decide who’s side they are on

        • So in other words, unfettered capitalism failed to provide those workers with a profitable market for their hard work and skills. Remind me again why we should all rush out to support an economic system that cannot reward us for our hard work and skills?

        • Mysophobe | Mar 16, 2012 at 8:56 am |

          Unions are a mere shadow of what they were before Reagan declared open season, get with the times. It sure seems like capitalists are running out of excuses for capitalism not working out well for anyone but capitalists. Who’re they gonna blame next?

          • Hadrian999 | Mar 16, 2012 at 12:39 pm |

             unions are pretty screwed now because of the tiered contracts, the old guys are throwing the young guy under the bus for their own wages and that pretty much guarantees the young guys aren’t gonna do anything for the union. that and “right to work” laws that are designed to kill unions by defunding them

  3. If he becomes president, I’m shooting my goldfish. 

  4. Mr Willow | Mar 15, 2012 at 4:41 pm |

    Because, in this country, we want someone who can help other people become successful.

    Yes, illustrious god-man! Please, save us! Be our stalwart job-creator, and lead us all to prosperity!

    Oh, wait. You’re the guy who bought companies, used their assets as collateral against loans to satisfy previous investors and allowed said companies to go bankrupt, killing thousands of jobs in the process. 

    Never mind. 

  5. Calypso_1 | Mar 15, 2012 at 5:53 pm |

    Oh Mittens if thou wouldst hie to Kolob thou wouldst see the serpent’s tooth is sown from the heart of the Dog and ye are but a well fleeced fool for chthonian gnomes grandly smitten by the majesty of thine hair.

  6. 1.) I though the Republicans were *against* elitism? 

    2.) Fox is the highest rated news network in the country. By any definition, they *are* the mainstream media. 

    • Hadrian999 | Mar 15, 2012 at 10:58 pm |

       republicans are for their own elitism and for the slave class to stay in their place and not aspire to anything more than being good little workers, a slave with aspirations crawling out their pin is what they don’t want

      • Liam_McGonagle | Mar 16, 2012 at 1:40 pm |

        And in that sense Republicans are more honest.  They run on policy platforms of barely concealed violence, and by God, they do their damnest to implement them.

        As you well know, I am particularly horrified by the complementary tendency for the “left” to outwit itself by pragmatic triangulation strategies.

        Any reasonable, sustainable political philosophy is a fragile, imperfect comprimise.  That’s just the way it goes.  But the refusal of captains to go down with the ship when confronted by absolute disaster, like Obama did after the midterms went against him, really is an unconscionable offense against the very notion of leadership. 

        Obama didn’t try to split hairs through sophistically reinterpreting his policy.  He flatly and in plain simply English contrdicted what he had been demanding just 1 week earlier.  He lied, disrespecting himself, and all the people who’d ever campaigned on his behalf, including a good many rep’s and senators who lost their seats to half-witted Tea Bagger buffoons.  That’s what I call treason.

        I’m aware that you don’t have much respect for the notion of leadership, but I still believe in it as a possibility, even if not a present reality.  It will never guarantee a Golden Age where “the lion shall lieth down with the lamb” and all that, but clearly some situations are undeniably worse than others.

        • Hadrian999 | Mar 16, 2012 at 2:06 pm |

           I am not against the idea of leadership, I just believe it must be tempered with a certain level of pragmatism, sticking with a failed plan just out of ideological loyalty or stubbornness is foolish. I believe a leader should own his own mistakes but at the same time do what is necessary to move forward successfully. I do have total disrespect for what passes for leadership in the current generation of political leaders who are more concerned with their post office holding positions in think tanks and lobby firms than they are of doing the hard work of governing responsibly.

          • Liam_McGonagle | Mar 16, 2012 at 2:15 pm |

            I hope I hear you, but I sometimes find our discussions a little bit like trying to grasp quicksilver with our fingers. 

            I’ll try again.

            What if True Leadership is the ability to boil an issue down to its absolutely most primal core essence and refuse to comprimise on that, even if there is a wide range of ancilliary features which you’re willing to budge on?

            I just think that it’s undeniable that Obama crossed that line.  Many, many, many times over.

          • Hadrian999 | Mar 16, 2012 at 2:24 pm |

             I don’t think he did what was right, he didn’t own his failures, a leader needs to take responsibility for his failures not try to ignore them or pass them off on someone else. too many issues today are completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but both parties cling to them because they are traditional sacred cows for them and their supporters. this ensures the game remains stagnant and it turns government into a kabuki show. A real leader is going to have to make a serious effort at solving problems and not be bound up in the traditional battle lines and irrelevant trappings of his ideology.

          • Liam_McGonagle | Mar 16, 2012 at 2:37 pm |

            While I’m not particularly fond of conflict in and of itself, I do think it has some place in the ecology.  That’s why I’m not particularly bothered by the mere existence of  partisan conflict–provided it serves some larger purpose, the purpose of forcing each side to evolve better, more socially constructive arguments.

            Granted, partisan conflict these days often runs counter to the purpose, even if I’m not 100% clear as to why.  I am sure that it has something to do, though, with the refusal to admit when they’re beaten, though.

            That I just can’t understand.  Used to be a day when there was a certain amount of glory attached to being beaten in the service of a higher goal.

          • Hadrian999 | Mar 16, 2012 at 2:46 pm |

            because these partisan fights are more like professional wrestling than fights, issues like guns religion and abortion, both sides make noise, pound their chest, and get the audience screaming then go into a scripted battle in which neither side really wins then the next event happens and they fight over the exact same thing again. neither side wants to score a real win because then they would lose that issue as a prop

  7. Philip K Dick warned us about this model of androids

  8. Cordwainer Smith | Mar 16, 2012 at 1:17 pm |

    Buster Friendly and his Friendly Friends

  9. Nobody has a problem with the fact THAT you’re rich, Mittens. We have a problem with HOW you became rich.

    Namely, by chopping up American companies into tiny bits and killing thousands of jobs for fun and profit.

  10. DeepCough | Mar 17, 2012 at 5:42 pm |

    I didn’t here “I’m rich, biatch!” insofar as I heard “I make a lot of money (go fuck yourself).”

Comments are closed.