Somehow I missed this one today and it might be my favorite that I’ve seen in a while. It directly attacks this so-called war on women and turns the table on it.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
Great Ad, keep them coming.
What a pretty baby!!
And what a powerful ad!
Racism scream in 3-2-1 because the woman and her baby are white.
You read my mind!!!
Yeah!!! Let them scream. 🙂
Let’s see if I can debunk the incoming flood of crap.
It will start like this, “BUT ROMNEY SAID HE DOESNT CARE ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DONT PAY TAXES!!!JUST LIKE THOSE UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE!!!!”
No, idiots, Romney said it was going to be quite hard to get their vote.
“BUT ROMNEY SAID THOSE PEOPLE DONT WANT TO BE SELF-SUFFICIENT.”
No, idiots, people who had jobs but got laid off because of the Obama economy are not who he is talking about. He’s talking about those who sit at home, doing nothing, and paying no taxes while simultaneously demanding EVERYONE ELSE BUT THEM SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES so they can then have more fabulous government hand-outs.
And yea, that will offend a lot of people who don’t want to believe they are suckling from the government teet (I am a law school student receiving government loans, so I’m one of the 47%) but it’s a simple, hard truth that must be talked about.
It all depends on whether people and the MSM give him credit for the gist of his message, or if they interpret the words as they literally were spoken. I know what he meant, but he came across as suggesting that all 47% who don’t pay taxes have either a victim or entitlement mentality, and we all know the media will have a field day with it.
Aaaahhhh, yes. Of course the perpetually offended will be offended. Most people are pretty sick of them and their offensiveness. Most people don’t go around parsing language to try to be offended. Just pray there are more people with commonsense than Harvard degrees.
BTW, that is one really cute baby. More baby pictures, more, more, more. Babies give us hope.
“I am a law school student receiving government loans, so I’m one of the 47%”
You have to pay that back, so you’re not on the government teet. As long as you’re not one of the many who are hoping Obama forgives student loans and puts it on the backs of everyone else you are fine. You’re making sure you have a future and that you won’t be a couch potato or a beach bum waiting for the next welfare check. You are what’s positive about America.
I pay that back over what…20, 30 years? And up and until that point that I’ve fully paid that back, I most certainly am a taker.
I disagree. It’s no different than getting a loan at the bank, except the conditions for repayment are better (interest and term). You can’t claim bankruptcy on a government loan (that I’m aware of), so there’s no worry of you skipping out on it. Borrowing is not taking. Regardless of what you refer to yourself as, you are not a bum mooching off government. Welfare lifers don’t have any intention of paying back a dime. You do.
I wish you luck on getting through law school.
With all due respect kong, I concur with Richard McCreedy. As long as you are accepting loans from the government, you are treated with favoritism compared to those that do not qualify because they do the right thing, work, earn wages, pay taxes, own a home/townhome/condo and pay real estate and local taxes.
If someone is in law school, they already have a Bachelors. Get a job! Save for law school and work your way through law school. Taxpayers should not finance anyone’s college or graduate school education. If you want it, work for it, save and attend when you can afford it. Don’t borrow to live at school, stay at home and reduce your costs.
I’d be willing to bet that a law degree costs a very hefty sum and saving while working a low income job would be impossible. I know of doctors that are $500,000 in debt from tuition costs. Good luck giving everyone the opportunity to be a doctor or a lawyer if you take away government loans. To expect someone to save that kind of money is pretty absurd. It’s not a two year local college degree.
It is not preferential treatment because you could go get a loan to go to school, too. You act as if it’s a free handout. It’s not. You ever borrow money from the bank for a house or a car? By your standards that would make you a freeloader, right? Just save up the money and walk until then, and live with mommy for the next thirty years so you can save money for a house. Point is, education costs as much as a house any more (depending on the area of study) and not many people could work, pay bills, and still be able to save that kind of money to go to school. Two year degree…of course. A lawyer or a doctor? Hope you have a rich daddy.
Law school doesn’t cost any more than I paid for my graduate and post graduate work. BA degrees in most fields enable well-paying jobs. If someone is earning minimum wage with a BA, they’ve done something wrong.
Not necessarily. College graduates can’t find jobs and 80% of college grads don’t get a job in the area of their degree.
By the way, I have no idea how much it costs to go to law school. I assumed it was ghastly high. The only good place for a lawyer is at the bottom of the ocean anyway.
Kong, sorry didn’t mean to sound harsh. I work with so many lawyers, can’t stand the profession and F!uke is just making it worse ($48,000 / year law school tuition but can’t afford birth control – gag me). I concur, bottom of the ocean as long as sharks will eat them in order not to pollute one of God’s greatest wonders.
Law school is affordable and usually close in price to grad school. The public law schools are very reasonable as is public college because we the taxpayers supplement them. I went to private college for grad and post grad (finished undergrad there as well). Cost was very similar to law school. It’s just that the law school students whine about being entitled to their education while the “other students” work in food service or other jobs to pay for their education. We will always have the pricing schools like Yale and Harvard but overall if one works and saves for a few years, you can graduate with very little debt.
I know the recent grads are having trouble finding work because of O’Blameveryonelse. As a business owner, they are not my go-to-group for hiring because of the entitlement attitude, wanting to always be on their phone etc. I specifically recruit the nontraditional graduate students because of their initiative and work ethic.
“…sorry didn’t mean to sound harsh.”
Funny, I was thinking of saying something similar on my behalf. 🙂
I totally agree that’s the best way to do it for one’s best interest. Government grants/loans bloat tuition costs for sure. I was shocked to hear that 80% of college grads don’t get a job in the area of their degree, so maybe it’s a waste of public money that adds debt for people that never get a result from it.
I also hate the entitlement mentality. Work for everything you get so Obama can’t say “you didn’t build that”. Lol, that’s not the reason, but it sounded good.
Glad we are on the same team kong1967!
I am lawyer who has federal student loans from law school. I am not a “taker” because I work and I pay my loans back. In return for providing me with my loan the government gets repaid its principal and receives interest from me. You repay the loans over a period that works for you – mine is 10 years. I think most would agree that students who borrow money from the federal program and have the intent to pay those loans back are not takers. I would suggest a taker is someone who takes money from the government because he/she can but offers nothing and/or provides nothing and/or has provided nothing in the past in return.
I agree with you generally. The person attending college, paying tuition and actually paying back their student loan is hardly taking. In fact that student would actually be paying their way AND footing the bill for a student the government has deemed as “needy”, through higher tuition to cover government mandated scholarships and admission quotas.
There is something to consider in what Richard said too. If the loans were private sector loans things would clear cut. But the government has nationalized the student loan industry and operates it at a loss to the tax payers. They of course do this so they can control the institutions, curriculum and admission profiles.
Another major reason the government controls student loans is to expand the government and its satellite private arms like Acorn and Media Matters. A student who goes into “public service” or a teacher (union), has their loan forgiven.
This is one of the main causes of the”self eating watermelon” nature of the Federal Government. For example, as a lawyer you can go work for the Feds, get your loan forgiven and then spend the rest of your career like Sandra Fluke, helping the Feds take even more money from us producers so it can then forgive even more student loans to hire even more lawyers, NGOs, and public sector union employees. 😉
The American taxpayer is truly a bewilderingly foolish beast.
You are in fact a taker. I have to pay higher taxes so there are funds available to fund your law school courses. Get a job or two, save everything you can, live on the basics (no cable TV, no eating out, etc.) Save for law school and attend when you have the funds. It should not be done on my tax dollars. I would rather keep and invest my money in what I want rather than burdening this country with even more lawyers.
In the aggregate the government (that’s me and you) has about 1 trillion in student loans. That money is taken from hard working citizens and paid to way-over-priced
institutions. We understand that government does not have stash, some don’t.
And the price is going up because of O’BambiCare and the abortion/birth control mandates. I don’t know about nationally but in MN the state colleges and universities are staffed by overpaid UNION employees. Get the unions out and the cost will go down immediately.
Richard: taking out and paying back a loan doesn’t make you a “taker”. Demanding free money when you are otherwise capable of earning your own way is.
Some of the “takers” are the people I see five to seven days a week. I’ll be inside working the job that, thank God, I’ve held since I was 21, and I’ll look out the window and see late teen and 20-something kids, male and female, festooned with tattoos and holes in their ears the size of the old Eisenhower dollars (or at least Kennedy halves) pushing baby carriages or riding skateboards or little BMX bikes like they never aged past 12. *Maybe* they have night jobs and are just killing time, but that’s a very, very slim *maybe*. Am I judging them based on appearances? Admittedly, yes, but appearances mean a lot. (Ugh, their earlobes look like a thumb and index finger giving the ‘okey-dokey’ sign when they take the rings out. What the hell were they thinking?)
20 or 30 years? I finished med school last year. With hard work, living off beans, rice, and peanut butter, I’ll pay mine back in a year or two. That’s an expensive law school, broseph!!!
Many of the students not on scholarship in my son’s law school told him they will work for the government who will make us taxpayers pay their loan off for them, so they do not care about paying high tuition.
Also their tuition is very high because nearly half of the class is on scholarships – effectively doubling the tuition for those who pay.
Yeah, I know some med hacks like that. They are gonna work in “urban” areas to get their loans “forgiven.” Whatever that means. Obama’s new healthcare makeover is even making parasites out of healthcare professionals. People of all stripes take the path of least resistance.
Taking out a loan with intent to NEVER pay it back, that is a taker.
You, my friend, are NOT a taker. So what if it takes you 20 years to pay it back. When you do, you will feel all that more successful. You are NOT who Mitt Romney is talking about. Please don’t include yourself in the “victim” category. You are trying to make something of yourself and THAT is commendable.
On whose backs are student loans ??
Hey now. I’m paying them back in a timely manner. I couldn’t have gone without them. I do charity work at a free clinic; if that counts for anything?
Seriously, you shouldn’t feel like you’re freeloading. Loans are not gifts. You’re paying them back so you are in the clear. Good man.
I’m not buying anything, until they are paid back. I’m driving a 2001 Honda Accord, until the wheels fall off. We’re living off my wife’s teacher salary. Debt is something I can’t have hanging over my head. Every paycheck I get goes directly to “Uncle Obama.” I want to let him know that “I didn’t do it alone.” haha!
Sounds like you will have big celebration coming soon. Congratulations in advance.
I second that!
Steven, you are the student loans should be geared towards because you are responsible and doing the right things. It wasn’t that long ago that student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy and the highest category of students doing it were doctors, lawyers and chiropractors.
Glad you are doing good things with your education. This is a perfect example of why student loans should be handled through capitalism instead of the government.
If the right organization was formed, they would not only loan the funds at lower interest rates but would also establish and locate scholarships that are geared to students who work, who have saved (% of own money towards tuition, were nontraditional returning students, etc.) I was able to finish my BA at a private college because of such a scholarship (only for nontraditional returning students who maintained a high GPA and paid a significant portion of their own tuition). This also reinforces responsibility and wouldn’t be subject to the political climate (vote for me and I’ll forgive your student loans) and the repaid funds would stay in the organization to fund other student loans (unlike the gov’t).
Hey, I may have thought of a 2nd business to start!
No, no. You misunderstood me. I was talking about the people that want Obama to forgive student loans. If he does that it would be on the backs of the taxpayers.
Still, the question, on whose backs are student (collective) loans?
You seem to be saying it’s a free program if loans are paid back.
Notice that you said “Obama” in your reply. Recipients are beholden to providers.!!!!
Back in the day college was cheap enough so that a person could work their way through school, which I did. I am not thankful to gov (or “Obama”), but, I am grateful for the folks that allowed me to work a somewhat flexible schedule. Education would cost 1/10th if government was not involved.
Sorry for the rant, but, I was referring to the big picture and government taking over everything. If I wanted to get education today, I also would be forced into the current system.
I completely agree. Government grants and loans drove tuition through the roof. I never said government loans is a free program, but it’s paid back over time.
We’re talking about two different things here. You’re talking about the government side and whether they should be involved in it or not. They are, so it is what it is (unless it’s changed) I’m talking about the students that get the loans and pay them back. I’m not going to hold it against someone for getting a loan. They are not getting something for free.
1vote, I concur and completed my education the same way (worked full-time) and very similar to stevenbiot. I lived on chicken soup and other very inexpensive foods and was so grateful to visit my mom on weekends because she cooked and sent me home with leftovers. That and her continued support is why I accomplished what I did, post graduate level education.
I had private loans because I had a job and paid taxes and couldn’t qualify for gov’t backed low interest loans (I paid 8%). I was also smart and paid monthly interest and even a little towards principal every month I could to lower my debt. I used my tax refunds every year to pay tuition instead of spending on anything else (I always claimed 0 exemptions from my wages to maximize my refund) And I worked, and worked, and worked and was debt-free when I went back to grad school and did my post grad work.
You can accomplish a good higher education if you are taught proper money management and someone works with you to find creative ways to reduce your expenses and helps you understand the true cost of borrowed funds. Our schools are short-changing our children in this area (and the true cost of a mortgage!)
Those of us that paid the taxes used to find his education!
“No, idiots, people who had jobs but got laid off because of the Obama economy are not who he is talking about. He’s talking about those who sit at home, doing nothing, and paying no taxes while simultaneously demanding EVERYONE ELSE BUT THEM SHOULD PAY MORE TAXES so they can then have more fabulous government hand-outs.”
The term for that lifestyle is “Ghetto Fabulous”…I feel like that term could have been worked into your quote somewhere! LOL! Otherwise, I totally agree with you!
It’s fun playing devl’s advocate 🙂
Where are all the radicals who posted last night? I missed it. I’m ready to pimp slap someone!
They’re asleep in their mom’s basement. Shush! You might wake them.
It’s time to break out the babies! Get em, Romney!!!
except for poodles. They are racist.
I’m just glad you didn’t mention chihuahua’s
Why didn’t Romney use a minority baby?! That would have drove the message home. We all know that baby is gonna be racist.
lol….that just ain’t right! hahahaha
You mean like eating peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches is racist according to the principle at a K-8 grade school in Portland, OR?
The content is great but I do wonder if it would hit home more if perhaps he showed a variety of babies from all races who will be saddled with this debt? But still a good ad!
Haha! Yep, Peanut Butter is racist.
I wonder how peanut president Jimmy Carter feels about racist peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Oh that’s right, he would say the jelly is the racist component.
If its a white person saying something, who is conservative, every word is racist. Being against government programs and socialism is racist.
I heard last night that white young women are overwhelmingly going for Obama — like a 60 point spread!
fools, tools and drones.
I know. The other 40% have to be racist.
I hope they are studying up on Sharia Law (property of men, arranged marriage, no such thing as a husband raping his wife, brutality of her genitles, burkas, honor killings, burning if he perceives she has shamed her husband).
Seriously, after this ad, maybe they could release one like that aimed at the same group.
I wish they would and contrast the Constitution to Sharia Law. These young kids need a wake up call! They are the 2nd entitlement generation being raised by the 1st entitilement generation.
The token white baby?
that’s a good one.
HELLO RIGHT!! I talked about this on Sunday…I shared with you here that this ad called “DAUGHTER” was fabulous. It started airing Sunday here in Orlando area and it was spot on. Goes right at Obamas’ failure to women on jobs, income and money. It was profound, concise, powerful and effective. This is the type of hard hitting factual information that people need to see and understand. Great ad and being here in Florida I was loving it!
I thought the hidden (subliminal) pro-life message was a homerun!
That and the subliminal message that a baby isn’t a burden!
As a parent that’s very powerful. I love how babies chew on their fingers.
Please forgive me for posting this on this great ad, but this baby doesn’t like being in debt either.
Watch Clint Eastwood after, also.
They should do a follow up ad about how O’Blameveryonelse and Polensi pay their females staffers much lower than the male staffers.
Great ad… What we really need to see is the counter to the life of Julia… A women who grew up in a average income family, whose parents instilled good values. A girl who had to do her chores, go to school, do her homework and study. She sacrificed going to parties and fun outings so she could get good grades, she worked to save for college. She goes off to college, focuses on her studies instead of partying, works in between classes and evenings to pay tuition. She graduates takes an entry level position, doesn’t complain about pay or benefits. She works hard and long hours, sacrifices vacations and some fun so she can build her career etc…. This want America is about, most people are not born with a silver spoon in their mouth, but only a few are willing to work toward their dream and are will to do what it takes
The Ugly War Against Women
This unrelenting war against women must stop and the misogynists waging it must be punished!
It was bad enough when Rush Limbaugh criticized law student/liberal political agitator Sandra Fluke for wanting taxpayers to pay for her birth control so that she didn’t have to lay out fifty cents or a buck for a condom. Okay, in her case poor Sandra needed a bunch of bucks since she seems to be exceptionally frisky.
It was bad enough that Limbaugh has said repeatedly over the years that “Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.” Okay, he may have a valid point there considering such feminist icons as Betty Friedan, Ruth Ginsburg, Whoopi Goldberg, et al.
Nevertheless, to make a blanket statement that liberal Democrat women are uglier than Republican women is way beyond the pale and outrageously sexist as well as emblematic of how far some people will go, of how low they will go, in the ongoing war against the fair sex.
However, it was not Limbaugh who said liberal women were unattractive but a study by two female University of California Los Angeles researchers, Kerri Johnson and Colleen Carpinella has found that they are.
The researchers concluded after careful study that ”Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat” and that ”Female politicians with less stereotypically feminine facial features were more likely to be Democrats, and the more liberal their voting record, the greater the distance the politician’s appearance strayed from stereotypical gender norms.” . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=28242.)