p0rn star Jenna Jameson backs Mitt Romney

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... tt-romney/

“Jenna Jameson wants Mitt Romney to win the presidential election this year so she can keep her low tax rate, the former adult film star told CBS San Francisco.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/electio ... -1.1128334

Perhaps if Jenna can get Willard, his wife Ann and the horse into a movie Romney could probably take a tax deduction on all of them.

Telcoman

telcoman wrote:p0rn star Jenna Jameson backs Mitt Romney

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... tt-romney/

“Jenna Jameson wants Mitt Romney to win the presidential election this year so she can keep her low tax rate, the former adult film star told CBS San Francisco.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/electio ... -1.1128334

Perhaps if Jenna can get Willard, his wife Ann and the horse into a movie Romney could probably take a tax deduction on all of them.

Telcoman

Well, if you think about it, Mitt's probably assumed more positions than Jenna.

Running mate!

bigbadberry3 wrote:Running mate!

That might help give his campaign a boost in the short run.

She could do some personal appearances for him in the numerous strip clubs in Tampa.

She could take off her clothes while Mitt shows us his tax returns.

Some may end up not paying close attention to the tax returns

Perhaps they have a few things in common. For example, both have done questionable things with their...uh..assets, and strange things have come out of both of their mouths.

rattatat boom crash.

you guys do know she was being totally anti-romney right? what she said is the equivalence to what i would say purposely if being interviewed: "hell ya, i want obama to win. i want free stuff. when you want free stuff, a democrat in office is a good thing."

so should we run with that, and actually pay attention what one idiot says? especially someone with the morals of a crack wh0re?
she is the furthest thing fro a conservative woman. she is free with her sexuality, shes bi-sexual, and she is obviously a free-spirit. total liberal. sex, drugs, nudity, and no shame.... yup thats a liberal.

Rich people wanting to keep their money? Never! Doesn't matter how they earned it as long as it was legal

Also, Ron Jeremy complimented the man, saying the man has great father skills.

bigbadberry3 wrote:Rich people wanting to keep their money? Never!

as if rich democrats dont want to keep their money? this is the type of rhetoric i want to curtail once and for on, especially on here. STOP WITH THIS HYPOCRITCAL NONSENSE. STOP ACTING AS IF YOUR DONKEYS' POO DOESNT STINK.

Greed: Rich businessman Mitt Romney gave more than 16% of his income to charity last year. A few years back, Barack and Michelle Obama gave less than 1% of theirs. Aren't Republicans supposed to be the heartless ones?

According to their tax returns, the Obamas gave to charitable causes just $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004. In 2005 and 2006, they boosted their giving a bit to 5%.

How about Vice President Joe Biden? Surely he could top the Obamas and save some face for the party that purports to be all about helping the poor. But no.

Biden and his wife gave an average of $369 a year to charity for the decade preceding his vice presidency, according to USA Today. That amounted to 0.3% of their income. They haven't been much more generous since Biden became veep. In 2010, they gave $5,350, or roughly 1.4%.

Maybe the Clintons, the last Democrats to hold the White House before the Obamas, can save the party's reputation. From 2000 to 2006, their donations averaged 8.26% of income, from a low of 1.21% in 2002 to a high of 12.57% two years later, says the Tax Foundation.

Better, but not exactly Romney territory. The former Massachusetts governor gave 13.73% of his income to charity in 2010 and an estimated 19.14% last year.

Perfect example of the democratic hypocrisy. You folks make a political career of painting yourselves as a champions of the poor, and blame republicans for being stingy with money - yet your own "messiah's" are stingy as hell.

Of course when Democrats talk about helping the poor, they don't mean with their own money. They mean using other people's money. Especially money from rich businessmen such as Romney.
Romney, of course, has been blistered in the media and by Democrats for being greedy. But who's greedier?
Those who make their fortunes through honest work and support policies that let Americans keep more of what is theirs? Or the lawmakers who grab, snatch, claw and bite for every dollar they can rake out of others?
There's a moral distinction between the two and voters need to recognize the great divide. When they do, we should begin to see a better class of politicians holding office.

ImStricken wrote:you guys do know she was being totally anti-romney right? what she said is the equivalence to what i would say purposely if being interviewed: "hell ya, i want obama to win. i want free stuff. when you want free stuff, a democrat in office is a good thing."

so should we run with that, and actually pay attention what one idiot says? especially someone with the morals of a crack wh0re?
she is the furthest thing fro a conservative woman. she is free with her sexuality, shes bi-sexual, and she is obviously a free-spirit. total liberal. sex, drugs, nudity, and no shame.... yup thats a liberal.

Personally, I was enjoying the humor of the topic but can you prove she was being sarcastic? Or are you just making an assumption? Jameson happens to a multi-millionaire entrepreneur who would benefit more tax-wise if Romney was elected. She might very well be a... (gasp).. registered Republican. By the way, call me un-American but I like attractive, free-spirited, naked women. .