Romney: 2002 Winter Olympic Games Were Made Possible By 'Enormous' Federal Spending

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lakhota, Aug 6, 2012.

  1. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,712
    Thanks Received:
    4,711
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +15,997
    More: Mitt Romney: 2002 Winter Olympic Games Were Made Possible By 'Enormous' Federal Spending
     
  2. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,111
    Thanks Received:
    6,895
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,964
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpfeAIRYYHk]Romney - Several hundred million $ from govt. for Olympics - YouTube[/ame]

    Republicans avoid these threads like the plague. They hate the truth. It totally freaks them out.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. oreo
    Offline

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,454
    Thanks Received:
    1,960
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +4,151
    Nice try Lakota--but if you remember right--the year 2002--was right after 9/11/2001--and most of the Federal Government money that was spent was for SECURITY. Other was for permanent roads and infrastructure.

    A little Wikipedia never hurt anyone:
    Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2012
  4. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,712
    Thanks Received:
    4,711
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +15,997
    Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The point is that "Romney didn't build that" without lots of help from Uncle Sam!
     
  5. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    trolls are hot and heavy tonight
     
  6. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    911 hello:rolleyes:
     
  7. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Wow...Vinne Viatlis is a big gubmint republican.

    Tell us something that most of us already didn't know.
     
  8. Avorysuds
    Offline

    Avorysuds Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    13,834
    Thanks Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Eugene Oregon
    Ratings:
    +2,141
    What's the point of this thread? To show that Mitt is a progressive liberal and then watch the OP attack him in every other thread they spam the boards with?

    I don't get it, you liberals should love the guy. Mitt supported Obama's wars, Obamacare, the Stimulus, the NDAA and TARP. Oh that’s right Mitt has an R next to his name, so you hate him.

    I get the whole “Mitt’s a big spender, pushed for Government HC, spent tons of cash, took money from the feds so he didn’t have to raise taxes so all you conservatives should hate him!” But fact is most conservatives don’t like Mitt, fact is Mitt should be beating Obama in every poll but he’s not because the conservative base does not trust him. So why play that card?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. CaféAuLait
    Offline

    CaféAuLait This Space for Rent

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Messages:
    7,776
    Thanks Received:
    1,947
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    Ratings:
    +2,323


    Not much considering the government contributed 50 percent of the cost ( nearly 1 billion dollars) of the Lake Placid games and 609 million for the Alanta games...Did you care then?

    What is this the tenth thread on this same subject? :confused:

    FactCheck.org : Slaloming Through Olympic Facts
     
  10. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    37,529
    Thanks Received:
    4,546
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,057
    That was a good post and I think you make a good point.

    The two are more alike than they are different. It's comical to see this type of vitriol spent over two different flavors of fiscal vanilla. One may cut future spending by $300 Billion while the other may cut it by $350 Billion and it will be called a "budget cut when the amount spent will be several degrees higher.

    This is why I have urged all here to vote your values. There is little a president can do on his or her own to effect much change in fiscal policy. The Congress is stuck in political never-never land (we're about to go off a cliff supposedly and they're on vacation) where politics rule so whatever party the President happens to be from will be thwarted by the other side.

    As I have said numerous times; the man who is president over the next 4 years will have three supreme court justices turn 80. It is possible that the next 4 years will see three justices replaced and this will set the tone of the court for a next generation. Obama has appointed Sotomayor and Kagan. And one can argue that those appointments made by Obama were two of his easier battles with the congress. Meaning that a determined President will get the nominees he wants. Especially one in a second term with no need to store political capital.

    I'm sure conservatives would chaff at the prospect that he may get to stack three more justices--one in the seat currently held by Scalia. But he might.
     

Share This Page