Summations Only

I guess it's theoretically possible that, if our freedoms were being stolen as you say, that some channels might decide to not report this due to bias. But wouldn't we notice the missing freedoms in our day to day lives? Wouldn't I only be able to buy books with a liberal slant, for instance, or only be allowed to buy a car with a traditional internal cumbustion engine if I offset it by installing a windmill on my roof? Something like that? I haven't noticed any such reduction in freedoms. Maybe I'm just dense. Maybe they'll hit me eventually. Maybe I'll show up to my voting place and find I can't vote without an ID or something. That would suck.Added by edit: and let me beat you to it: yes, technically, because of the individual mandate I no longer have the freedom to not have health insurance AND not pay a penalty, both (unless I fall below a certain income level). I didn't think of that one because I'm neither stupid nor brave enough to try and go without health insurance.Edited by Aware Wolf, : Added content

My feel is that Mitt is just repeating a fairly common Republican belief that he may or may not agree with (it's always hard to know exactly what he believes). I think that Repubs have come up with this idea that there is a fairly large amount of voters in this country who are nothing more than parasites, who like being parasites, and will vote Democratic in order to keep being parasitic; and they have come up with this idea to explain why Repubs don't win more elections. After all, they (like everyone else) truly believe that their views are correct, and that anyone would agree with them if they just stopped and thought about them. How then to explain the fact that they only win about 50% of the time? It can't be because the other side's ideas are equally or more compelling to half the electorate. There MUST be another reason.This type of behavior is certainly not found only in the Republican Party of the United States. It'sa common human behavior, but also annoying and often counter productive.

As a side note to the whole "47%" issue; is there ANYONE who believes Mitt's explanation that he was simply pointing out how there are more Americans receiving gov't assistance now under Obama? Surely EVERYONE, even folks who generally agree with the "moocher" idea, must see this for a lie? Not that it's a big shock for a politician to lie, but the sheer obviousness of this one is worth mentioning.