Romney Bashes Gingrich, Ignores Occupy Wall Street Protestors in Florida


Naples, Fla.—On-again/off-again Republican front-runner Mitt Romney blasted his chief rival, Newt Gingrich, for his ties to the mortgage industry at a rally here this morning. Speaking before an overflow crowd Romney chided Gingrich for his "excuse making" about the debates before pivoting to his ties to Freddie Mac. 

"The first debate audience was quiet and Speaker Gingrich said that threw him off, he can't debate before a quiet audience. The next audience was very loud, very loud, and he said that threw him off. He can't debate before a loud audience," Romney said, eliciting laughter from the crowd.

"He's like Goldilocks, ya know, and at this point it has to be just so," he said.

The woman behind me was puzzled. 

"Goldilocks? I don't get it," she whispered to her companion. 

Romney then began describing Florida's housing woes and foreclosure problems

"One of the greatest contributros to the collapse of housing here and across trhe country was government," Romney said. "At the time some people were standing up saying we need to reform the system. Speaker Gingrich was being paid $1.6 million dollars to stand up and say, 'These programs should continue the way they are.'" 

"BOOO!" came the response from the crowd.

"The people of Florida have had enough of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and government interference, and it's time to get back to free-market princpiples!"


Moving on from Gingrich, Romney proceeded to give his standard stump speech attacking President Barack Obama for his handling of the debt and involvement with Solyndra's failure, all while Romney touted his own private sector experience. 

Occasional shouts and murmurs could be heard in the crowd. At first this consisted mainly of people bitching about not being able to see.

Then the noise in the back began to sound more like yodeling. A handful of Occupy Wall Street protestors had arrived late to the event and were milling about at the back with fake dollar bills taped across their faces, supposedly representing how "money is speech".

One Occupier was carrying a poster that featured the words "OCCUPY" and was shaped like the solidarty fist. 

One Romney staffer I talked to said the Occupiers haven't been a problem for them in Florida.

"New Hampshire was rough though," he said. 

NEXT: Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie on What Democrats and Republicans Should Learn From Kodak's Demise

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Stupid Occutards… how do they work?

    1. They don’t.

      1. Oh, that’s right… the ones who DO have jobs, call in sick so they can bitch in a crowd of their peers.

        1. Isn’t it funny how Tea Party events were organized on weekends?


            1. Spot-on! Well done.

    2. looking for the bilover?—datebi*cO’m— is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.sign up for free.

      1. I am intrigued, could you provide more information?

      2. Who is Bill Over?

    3. Are you a bicurious having trouble finding honest and safe places to have bisexual chat ? Well you’ve come to the right place—datebi*cO’m—. Just join in for free!

      1. Ah, great! Thanks.

    4. My neighbor just met a bisexual man on —datebi*cOMit’s where for men and women looking for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment.
      It’s a nice place for the people who have the same sexual orientation.

  2. Who is Garrett Quinn?

    1. Someone who misspells Goldilocks.

    2. A minor character? A Bertram Scudder?

    3. Tough crowd!

      1. I’m in charge here!

        1. Rookie!

          1. You should talk, Orrin.

            1. Fuck…Orren.

              1. The Pro Bowl is running opposite Undercover Boss.

                I couldn’t make this stuff up.

    4. Somebody who obviously isn’t writing a book, or else we’d see him plug it in every GD article.

  3. Fuck the occupiers are tiresome.

  4. The good news is a new season of Top Gear starts today.

  5. “Goldielocks? I don’t get it,” she whispered to her companion.

    I hope somehow it works out that hers is the deciding vote in the Florida primary.

  6. The woman behind me was puzzled.

    “Goldielocks? I don’t get it,” she whispered to her companion.

    HO! LY! FUCK! Wow. I don’t even. Wow.

    1. contributros princpiples

  7. Occupy Naples? Why? Are bars and boatslips really making ridiculous profits? I mean, I guess there could possibly be some 1%er resorts.

    1. There’s actually quite a bit of money in Naples. Old retirees and shit.

      1. We got to tax them to make sure their Social Security checks show up on time.

        1. Occupy Naples? They must mean that the two people under 30 who live there came to protest…

    2. Naples is definitely an extremely wealthy area, even compared with other cities in Florida. It all basically happened in the last few decades. It used to be pretty dumpy.

      1. Naples used to be the rest stop before going on to Alligator Alley or Tamiami through the ‘glades.

    3. I’d like to see them try to occupy Naples, Italy, and have to deal with the Mafia.

  8. “Goldielocks? I don’t get it,” she whispered to her companion.

    The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has affected even Fairy Tales.

  9. Goldielocks was the dwarf who hid under the bridge and pushed the Big Bad Wolf into the oven, right?

  10. Is anybody here willing to break it to the Occutards that it’s the exact opposite of what they’re advocating that made their country the wealthiest nation in the history of the world? I would, but I don’t feel like getting pelted with tomatoes.

    1. Is anybody here willing to break it to Res Publica Americana that “the Occutards” have no consistent, objective philosophy and that, in this regard, they are soulmates with the “libertarians”?

      1. Oh, I’d love for somebody to do that — if it ever becomes true. Thanks for charitably implying, either way.

        1. they are soulmates with the “libertarians”

          1. I don’t even

          2. Being a wishful dolt and wishing unto the Moon and the stars that you and your likeminded congregation of acquaintances have a great deal in common with a rabble of pinko fucks and, at best, self-deluded (and, in some cases, maybe even unwitting) progressives is a terrific path to success, as we all know, because supposed ideological alliances of this sort, spawning nothing but compromise and viscous dilution of principle, is a good thing, right?

            You know, like unicorns and leprechauns. I just KNOW they exist!

            1. *are

          3. The Occutards were heroes to you and your dumb ass fellow travelers until they started shitting in police cars.

            Stop trying to pawn them off on libertarians. They are liberals. And if they have no consistent objective philosophy it is because modern liberals have no consistent philosophy beyond “Go Team Blue”.

            1. Not true.


              is sort of a philosophy.

  11. Occupy boy is kinda cute (from what I could tell with the dollar bill in the way)

    Pity about him being uneducated.

    1. For all we know he has a Harvard education.

      But that doesn’t mean he isn’t stupid, which is quite obvious.

      1. educated is not the same as learned. Kids’ parents borrow a lot of money for their children to become clueless these days.

      2. au contraire…

        Harvard matriculation doesn’t mean he’s educated. Maybe miseducated.

        I certainly don’t think Occupiers are stupid. I’ve got my best friend and my sister in the occupy camp and we argue often about it. They simply watched too much ‘Manufacturing Consent’ etc in their curriculum to readily accept things like ‘corporations are people’ or ‘economic rights are human rights’.

        (There’s a good chance that it was ultimately a good thing that I spent my 3 years at college goofing off, ultimately being kicked out with a 1.8 GPA. I managed to get a good education at U of R(eason) with professors Pro Lib, thoreau, Balko and Urkobold.)

    2. He probably got fired for being absent too much for Occupy events where he complains about how hard it is to find a job because tea-bagging racist homophobic racist homophobe capitilist child-rapist environment-haters keep “the poor” down.

  12. Hey, come on- a job is a RIGHT, not an obligation.

    1. It’s your right to have a job and give your money to those who don’t work.

  13. It is going to be the race for Romney to lose election this coming in November.

    1. Was this in English?

      1. Even I did understand that not.

  14. Philistines!

    Among Point Dume residents who are urging preservation of the house ? as well as million-dollar views ? are Julia Roberts, Sean Penn, Don Rickles and Chad Smith, drummer for the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

    “In my wildest dreams, I would never, ever have thought it would be possible for someone to build closer to our home ? and also into the view of what you know is so precious to us and our family,” said Smith, who lives next door and is leading the effort to stop the project. “It blows me away that this is possible.”

    I wonder if they have considered passing the hat and buying this precious architectural artifact in order to save it.

    1. No, not Don Rickles! Fuck, all my childhood heroes have been tarnished. Well, except Tom Petty.

    2. Oh my, that is nothing but 1%er lulz. From the people that bought the house because it didn’t suit their needs (but obviously the site did) to their poor, suffering neighbors who might lose a tiny bit of view of the entire fucking Pacific Ocean from their tennis court or pool deck.

    3. You can be that half of those protesting gazillionaires live in houses that were built blocking someone ELSE’s view.

    4. Buy a fucking easement if it is that important to you. Really this is just these people thinking they shouldn’t have to pay for shit. Had they gone to the previous property owner and offered a good chuck of money, they could have bought a light and air easement and this wouldn’t be an issue. But instead they did nothing thinking they were just entitled to the view.

      1. Buy something? Isn’t that the government’s job? Because when government buys things, they’re free. I thought everybody knew that.

    5. “In my wildest dreams, I would never, ever have thought it would be possible for someone to build closer to our home ? and also into the view of what you know is so precious to us and our family,” said Smith, who lives next door and is leading the effort to stop the project. “It blows me away that this is possible.”

      Private property, how does it work?

  15. And-

    “The destruction of the house would be a tragedy, since it could easily be remodeled ? to fulfill the new owner’s desires and requirements,” Morgenthaler said. “While I believe that a property owner should be able to do what he wants with his own property, within reason, we each have a responsibility to safeguard art, and tearing down the house would be a violation of that responsibility.”

    “I believe a property owner should be allowed to as he wishes, as long as it strictly conforms to my preferences.”

    1. What the

    2. Has Morgenthaler considered 1) seeking employment with the United States Department of Justice, or 2) fucking off?

  16. “Free market principles”??!??!

    He must be one of them thar Paulbottards!

  17. …is…
    Why is there no Pro Bowl Live Blogging Thread?

  18. Romney would bash Occupy Wall Street. At Bain capital he was the exact kind of scum they are protesting against. Mitt is the head of the snake if you ask me!

  19. Why not put the Occutards inside the place and *then* bulldoze it?

    1. They can be heroes like Rachel Corrie. Can we ensure that shrike is in there with them?

  20. Linked today from instapundit. Hayak really had these people’s number. No wonder they ignored him. It is a wonder they didn’t kill him.

    Individual freedom cannot be reconciled with the supremacy of one single purpose to which the whole of society is permanently subordinated. To a limited extent we ourselves experience this fact in wartime, when subordination of almost everything to the immediate and pressing need is the price at which we preserve our freedom in the long run. The fashionable phrases about doing for the purposes of peace what we have do for the purposes of war are completely misleading, for it is sensible temporarily to sacrifice freedom in order to make it more secure in the future, but it is quite a different thing to sacrifice liberty permanently in the interests of a planned economy.

    To those who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters, the connection between the two systems is obvious. The realization of the socialist program means the destruction of freedom. Democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is simply not achievable.…

    1. Joe from Lowell certainly hated him and ridiculed The Road to Serfdom as false prophecy. It wasn’t prophecy, it was a warning, and one that was effective. The book was condensed for The Reader’s Digest and read by millions of Americans. Without it’s influence the world immediately after the war would have been quite a bit different than the one we know because there were victories on the margin, like Truman not getting his way with the nationalization of the steel industry and the New Dealers finally being kicked to the curve, that have helped keep in check the total state to a not insignificant degree.

      1. People forget that they wanted to continue the war state, complete with rations, after the war ended. That is indeed what England did much to its misery.

        It is funny how history books skip over the 1946 Congressional elections. The Republicans took control of Congress. No one ever mentions why. It was because people wanted the war planning ended and things returned to normal. And they kicked the Democrats out of Congress to do it.

      2. And Joe From Lowell gave new meaning to the term fool.

        1. But dammit, Joe was our fool and have we had one near as good since?

          1. Now he’s everybody’s fool; I run across his comments anytime I feel masochistic enough to check out the action over at Kosworld. Verdict: still a fucktard.

      3. Wow, a stab at joe from out of nowhere.

        Next someone will take a shot at Jean Bart or thoreau.

        1. Joe is always worth kicking around.

        2. Wow, Tulpa, that was really maxipadish of you. Gettin’ cranky?

          1. Not cranky at all, I thought it was funny that joe “looms large” still after all these years and all these tears.

            1. You have to go back and see how he fumed about Hayek. Usually it was just jabs here and there, but at least one thread had an Ahab versus Moby Dick quality. I’ve forgotten a lot of things over the years about joe, but that, and the business about a dead monkey in a cartoon strike me as being unforgettable.

              Sorry about the misunderstanding.

              1. If it weren’t for misunderstandings these threads would get like 10 posts each.

        3. And hardly out of nowhere when he is the perfect example of what John mentioned above.

    2. It is “Hayek” you doophus conservative wannabe capitalist. And he hated you assholes.

      1. Go fuck yourself Shrike. It is a good thing you can spell because you can’t do anything else. You really are the most worthless piece of human garbage ever to post on the internet. Do the world a favor and go take a fucking gas pipe before you breed, because trust me every single person who has ever read one of your rants hates your fucking guts.

        1. I hated him, and then read him some more, and now I love him. He’s just awesomely batshit insane no holds barred. It’s like a tire fire with Ben Stiller in it. Horrible but I can’t stop watching.

          1. At some point you will tire of the pedestrian level lunacy that is shrike. His mere presence in a thread will taint it. He will strain on your patience like a janitor taking notice of you and your inability to leave the stall at that moment in time who gets it in his head he can impress you with what he has overheard at the morning meeting of the board of directors shooting the shit about the news and whatnot. However, the words he repeats mean nothing to him and he has no ability to discern whether the parts he thinks sound wonderful together are in any agreement. I went through that phase too where it seemed amusing, but now I just want a YouTube video of him being flogged in Singapore after being unaware of the local laws concerning chewing gum.

      2. Seriously shrike, you are just a worthless piece of shit. Do you even have a mother who likes you? Even Hitler had a girlfriend. But I think you might be the exception that proves that rule.

        Hayek hated who? There is a huge spectrum of people on here you brain damaged little fuck. Your rants don’t even make sense.

        1. shrike’s just cranky because someone said something mean about Barry.

          1. Shirke is silly and ignorant. But he makes up for it by being unpleasant and naturally stupid.

            1. Thing is, he sounds like he went to college, which meant he spent a bunch of money on a futile effort.

              Kinda funny.

        2. I don’t know about hate, but Hayek was definitely not a libertarian.

          1. He was a conservative. Read the Constitution of Liberty. He talks about the value of traditions and mores even if their reasons are not readily apparent. He was a conservative in the Russell Kirk mold, which is of course what I am more than a libertarian. If shrike were anything but incoherent he would know that.

            1. He also wrote an essay titled “Why I Am Not A Conservative.”

              1. Classical liberal? Unlike libertarians he didn’t oppose a minimal income and essential health care supplied by government. He also suggested the legal system could evolve with the times, which does not seem like a hostile attitude towards regulation as a rule.

                1. Hayek favored a negative income tax over the welfare state is it exists then/now. He was in favor of some very limited government assistance, which just goes to show nobody is perfect.

                  1. Here’s a broom for your sweeping generalizations!

            2. Hayek was a (classical) liberal in the original sense. No libertarian and certainly no conservative.

              1. It is quite possible to be a classical liberal and a libertarian, you know.

        3. John|1.29.12 @ 9:57PM|#
          “…Do you even have a mother who likes you?…”
          Dunno about shriek’s Mum, but shriek’s dog probably doesn’t.

      3. Something about Shrike just SCREAMS loser. Something never felt quite right about the guy, but it’s not worth my time to figure it out.

  21. What’s the point of the pro bowl???

    1. It used to be when it was the week after the Super Bowl to give everyone a crappy meaningless game so they wouldn’t miss football too much during the off season.

      1. The Women’s Soccer game is more exciting.

    2. They’re almost playing a football game now, thanks to the NFC showing up the AFC with onside kicks and fake punts and called QB runs by Cam. The AFC defense has been breaking the semi-formal “Pro Bowl rules” left and right on the last two drives. Something tells me they’re pissed.

    3. “What’s the point of the pro bowl???”
      Ever read about players’ contracts? A Pro Bowl spot is worth some bucks! Dunno if it requires them to actually play in the damn thing, but hey, expenses paid to HI for guys living in snow? Nifty gals in an ounce of fabric?

  22. Tonight on Top Gear, they were pulled over in Italy for working on a Sunday without a permit.

    1. And that is why Italy is fucked.

      1. Jeremy Clarkson said about the same thing.

  23. “Goldilocks? I don’t get it,” she whispered to her companion.


  24. Have Occupiers seen this?

    1. That is great.

    2. Morons. Edgar is making $9 an hour in profit off the other two workers in the video. He can afford to lose $5 an hour giving Simon a job.

      And if he doesn’t want to, the people can pass a law against firing workers without cause.

      1. While you’re at it, you could force Vicki to give some of her $15 an hour to Simon to keep him in work, right?

      2. Speaking of shrike-level stupid… here’s mustard. Posting more of his bullshit.

        Sun must’ve come up today.

        1. Nah it’s a troll.

    3. But, but, LIVING WAGE!

    4. Socialism: The belief that fucking off is morally superior to making money.

    5. tl;dw

      1. 7 minutes is beyond your attention span?

        1. It’s a traptroll!

  25. ATTN Occupiers: You’ve almost convinced me. You just need to tape more crap to your faces and then I’m totally converting to your cause.

    1. We need to start arguing that rat poison is speech.

  26. If you Americans have an obesity problem, why do you have popular shows celebrating fat people?

    1. Lew Costello was very funny and deserved the accolades he received in life.

      1. We refer to the “Mike & Molly” show

        1. Also “King of the Queens” show. The skinny girl got fatter as the show went on, to match the man.

          1. And how did a fat Drew Carey date the skinny girl?

            1. Er, a Charlie’s Angels backlash, maybe?

          2. It’s called hiding a pregnancy on a show where the lead is supposed to be childless.

    2. With a name like Francois, i assumed you wanted a root cause.

    3. If I had to eat snails, I’d want some champagne handy to get the taste out.

  27. Well, he owned you regularly so naturally you’d want some payback.

  28. Occupy was a just party crashed by the homeless and brought to you by the letters MEDIA.

    The fact that they were clueless on demands but animated when it came to hand signals should have been a clue for what it isn’t

    1. Occupy was a just party crashed by the homeless and brought to you by the letters MEDIA.

      How can a party be crashed by the homeless when the Occutards whole Potemkin village concept revolved around “economic justice”?

      And isn’t the whole point of their protests to get attention from the media? So they’re hardly in a position to complain when they get exactly what they want.

      1. “just”

        I don’t think you know how to use that word correctly, rather.

        1. I thought I wrote “just a party”

          I lol’d when I read this earlier:

          Tulpa|1.30.12 @ 12:27AM|#

          If it weren’t for misunderstandings these threads would get like 10 posts each.

          So true

  29. Naples FL has enough people under 60 to show up at a rave?
    Must’ve closed down every restaurant in town.

    1. The raves start at 4:00 PM, after the dinner crowd disperses.

  30. OT in a OT thread.…..ent-goals/

  31. Good news, OT-style:…..40268.html

    1. Um, how is that good news, exactly? Other than the fact that justice will be done, that’s a horrible story.

      1. The “justice being done” part, *is* the good news.

        Sorry, should’ve delineated that.

        1. *shrugs* I still don’t like it. I don’t like that some innocent people had to suffer in order for justice to be meeted out to those horrible people, so that negates any bloodthirst happiness at seeing them found guilty.

          1. Um… look, the pertinent thing here is, justice was done. Yeah, the story is gruesome, but hopefully it will stop similar events from happening.

            Actually, I’m not sure where the “people had to suffer” part comes in, as the murderers didn’t *NEED* to do what they did.

            Anyway, they’ll be in prison for at least 25 years. Hopefully forever.

            1. To further clarify:

              The innocent dead didn’t have to suffer, but they did because of the lack of restraint shown by those who murdered them.

              Which comes back to the idea of taking responsibility for your actions, as we like to discuss here from time to time.

              It’s damned sad these murders happened. But at least something good came out of it at the end.

              1. See that’s where we disagree. Yes it is right and appropriate that the murderers be held accountable for their actions…but that doesn’t mean I enjoy it. I never “enjoy” seeing other people suffer, even bad people. It’s a whole sad, sordid affair. I don’t consider people going to prison “something good”. It’s awful…which is why we send them there. Do you dance a jig in joyful bliss whenever someone is executed by the state? After all, they’re just getting what’s coming to them, like these people are.

                1. needz moar christfags

                2. i’ve been accused of having a bleeding heart before, and i’d love to live in a world where people didn’t do profoundly evil shit… but over time, and after dealing with countless victims and seeing their pain, etc., i have less empathy for complete scum like these having to spend a life in prison

                  for me, a major ‘click’ moment as the lefties would call it, was dealing with daniel kosi (google him)

                  whatever metaphysical wanks you can get into about whether “evil” exists, i have ZERO doubt that true evil exists, and this man had it in spades

                  it also helped inform my understanding of use of force, and how often UNDERreacting can be very bad… the general push is to concentrate on overreactions, but in the kosi case, a severe underreaction by my cop-ocrat admins meant anothe person died that didn’t need to while they debated sending SWAT in

                  the same happened on mardi gras when the SPD copocrats issued an order for SPD *not* to engage rioting gangbangers and a true innocent died along with tons of severe injuries

                  the evil with kosi was palpable. i can’t describe it, but it was there

                  i don’t have ANY problem with the fact he will spend the rest of his life in prison. it makes me feel GOOD in his case.

                  1. oh and the newspaper article replies he “stabbed” tolentino

                    well, if by “stabbed” you mean he nearly sawed her head off with a knife, then yes, he “stabbed” her.

                    fuck him and i hope he has a miserable life in prison

                3. Wow.

                  No, I don’t “dance a jig” when people are executed, though I do believe *some* people need to be executed.

                  Better to have disgusting trash like these murderers out of society, though… as any sensible person would think.

  32. Many people often ask why we don’t just take the public policy advice offered by environmental scientists with regard to global warming.

    One major reason is the fact that people with scientific expertise often utterly lack economic expertise, most notably in their complete inability to perform basic cost/benefit analyses.

    Here’s a good example of that from medical science:…..-term.html

    The NY Times gave column space to this guy to bitch about Ritalin. Apparently, this guy feels that we shouldn’t give Ritalin to kids, because one study shows that the positive benefits of Ritalin gradually taper off as the body adjusts to the stimulant, and after eight years it no longer benefits you.

    When reading this I was struck by the fact that this bozo apparently doesn’t realize that telling me that something stops working after eight years is not the same as telling me that something doesn’t work.

    Even if the study is validated, it would mean that if you start giving someone Ritalin in 4th grade, the benefits of it will last long enough for the kid to get to college, which is the whole fucking point. But for some reason once again that basic cost/benefit relationship is invisible to the researcher.

    Can anyone explain this to me? What is the source of this phenomenon? I’m pretty used to “public health” types heavily discounting the preferences and interests of the target populations they study, but this is ridiculous.

    1. For some reason people cannot face the idea of their being a less than perfect solution to a problem. Here you are right, eight years of productivity is a hell of a lot better than nothing. Better to get the kids through their childhood and then hope as an adult they can cope with their condition. But this guy will not accept that. If a solution is not perfect it is not worth doing.

      This same kind of thinking drives a lot of the opposition to school choice. Not everyone who objects to school choice is a union hack. Some people just refuse to pursue a policy that doesn’t benefit everyone even if overall we are better off for doing it.

    2. Fluffy,

      This is not an answer to your larger question, but I think this guy *has* done a cost/benefit analysis.

      He writes: the illusion that children’s behavior problems can be cured with drugs prevents us as a society from seeking the more complex solutions that will be necessary. Drugs get everyone ? politicians, scientists, teachers and parents ? off the hook. Everyone except the children, that is.

      In his cost/benefit analysis, parents are spending a great deal of money on medicine that isn’t (in the long term) solving the problem. I’m guessing he believes a more sensible use of research and treatment resources would be in family counseling.

    3. The issue, to me, isn’t really that getting dosed with Ritalin will help a kid focus enough to hopefully move on to the Ministry of Information of his or her choice after high school–it’s really about the notion that anyone who acts out in class “obviously” has some sort of disorder and needs to be immediately drugged.

      How many schools, for instance, have various students diagnosed as ADD/ADHD afflicted in order to get greater government resources?

  33. So, curious about the cute Occupy Boy, I decided to stalk, um, look up the Occupy Ft Myers website.

    It’s is very slick and professional looking. Unfortunately technology cannot change the basic problem that some animals are more equal than others:…..postid-282

    My favorite part is when the guys complains about being made to feel like the 99% of OFM.

  34. That dude is so so full of himself.

  35. The NY Times gave column space to this guy to bitch about Ritalin. Apparently, this guy feels that we shouldn’t give Ritalin to kids, because one study shows that the positive benefits of Ritalin gradually taper off as the body adjusts to the stimulant, and after eight years it no longer benefits you.

    When reading this I was struck by the fact that this bozo apparently doesn’t realize that telling me that something stops working after eight years is not the same as telling me that something doesn’t work.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.