or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The 2012 Elections Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The 2012 Elections Thread - Page 29

post #1401 of 10454

Edited by Snaieke - 1/10/12 at 9:05pm
post #1402 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

I don't know if it was intentional but TCM is showing "Dr. Strangelove" right now...it seems weirdly apropos given what is on all the news channels.



Kubrick wanted to make a movie about the Cold War and realized at some point it had to be a comedy.  The same can be said of the past 10 years.  Dr. Strangelove is now evergreen. 

post #1403 of 10454
double post apparently

 


Edited by Snaieke - 1/10/12 at 9:04pm
post #1404 of 10454

Romney's NH victory speech is pretty great.

 

This should be Romney's fucking slogan. I love it so much I want to make babies with it.

 

Quote:
The President has run out of ideas. Now, he’s running out of excuses. And tonight, we are asking the good people of South Carolina to join the citizens of New Hampshire and make 2012 the year he runs out of time.

 

 

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/text-mitt-romney-s-new-hampshire-victory-speech-20120110

Quote:

Tonight, we celebrate. Tomorrow, we go back to work.

We remember when Barack Obama came to New Hampshire four years ago.

He promised to bring people together.

He promised to change the broken system in Washington.

He promised to improve our nation.

Those were the days of lofty promises made by a hopeful candidate. Today, we are faced with the disappointing record of a failed President. The last three years have held a lot of change, but they haven’t offered much hope.

The middle class has been crushed. Nearly 24 million of our fellow Americans are still out of work, struggling to find work, or have just stopped looking. The median income has dropped 10% in four years. Soldiers returning from the front lines are waiting in unemployment lines. Our debt is too high and our opportunities too few.

And this President wakes up every morning, looks out across America and is proud to announce, “It could be worse.”

It could be worse? Is that what it means to be an American? It could be worse?

Of course not.

What defines us as Americans is our unwavering conviction that we know it must be better.

That conviction guides our campaign. It has rallied millions of Americans in every corner of this country to our cause.

Over the last six months, I’ve listened to anxious voices in town meetings and visited with students and soldiers. In break rooms and living rooms, I’ve heard stories of families getting by on less, of carefully planned retirements now replaced by jobs at minimum wage. But even now, amidst the worst economy since the Great Depression, I’ve rarely heard a refrain of hopelessness.

Americans know that our future is brighter and better than these troubled times. We still believe in the hope, the promise, and the dream of America. We still believe in that shining city on a hill.

We know that the future of this country is better than 8 or 9% unemployment.

It is better than $15 trillion in debt.

It is better than the misguided policies and broken promises of the last three years – and the failed leadership of one man.

The President has run out of ideas. Now, he’s running out of excuses. And tonight, we are asking the good people of South Carolina to join the citizens of New Hampshire and make 2012 the year he runs out of time.

President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our Party and for our nation. This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success. In these difficult times, we cannot abandon the core values that define us as unique -- We are One Nation, Under God.

Make no mistake, in this campaign, I will offer the American ideals of economic freedom a clear and unapologetic defense.

Our campaign is about more than replacing a President; it is about saving the soul of America. This election is a choice between two very different destinies.

President Obama wants to “fundamentally transform” America. We want to restore America to the founding principles that made this country great.

He wants to turn America into a European-style entitlement society. We want to ensure that we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity.

This President takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe; we look to the cities and small towns of America.

This President puts his faith in government. We put our faith in the American people.

He is making the federal government bigger, burdensome, and bloated. I will make it simpler, smaller, and smarter.

He raised the national debt. I will cut, cap, and balance the budget.

He enacted job-killing regulations; I’ll eliminate them.

He lost our AAA credit rating; I’ll restore it.

He passed Obamacare; I’ll repeal it.

When it comes to the economy, my highest priority as President will be worrying about your job, not saving my own.

Internationally, President Obama has adopted an appeasement strategy. He believes America’s role as leader in the world is a thing of the past. I believe a strong America must – and will – lead the future.

He doesn’t see the need for overwhelming American military superiority. I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it.

He chastises friends like Israel; I’ll stand with our friends.

He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth.

Our plans protect freedom and opportunity, and our blueprint is the Constitution of the United States.

The path I lay out is not one paved with ever increasing government checks and cradle-to-grave assurances that government will always be the solution. If this election is a bidding war for who can promise more benefits, then I’m not your President. You have that President today.

But if you want to make this election about restoring American greatness, then I hope you will join us.

If you believe the disappointments of the last few years are a detour, not our destiny, then I am asking for your vote.

I’m asking each of you to remember how special it is to be an American.

I want you to remember what it was like to be hopeful and excited about the future, not to dread each new headline.

I want you to remember when you spent more time dreaming about where to send your kids to college than wondering how to make it to the next paycheck.

I want you to remember when you weren’t afraid to look at your retirement savings or the price at the pump.

I want you to remember when our White House reflected the best of who we are, not the worst of what Europe has become.

That America is still out there. We still believe in that America.

We still believe in the America that is a land of opportunity and a beacon of freedom. We believe in the America that challenges each of us to be better and bigger than ourselves.

This election, let’s fight for the America we love. We believe in America.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

 

 

post #1405 of 10454

Tell me one authentic reason why you like Romney other than he's a republican and you think he can beat Obama. While you're at it, tell me one thing he's going to do to improve the direction of our country. I'm dying to know (again, other than simply replacing a president you hate).

post #1406 of 10454
Quote:
Originally posted by LaurenOrtega
 
ONLY THE GOOD THINGS WILL HAPPEN IF HE'S ELECTED!!! NONE OF HIS OTHER MORE QUESTIONABLE IDEAS CAN EVER LEAK INTO GOVERNMENT POLICY!!!!!
 
Seriously Barry if you don't think ANY of his other views can possbily find their way into the political structure of the country? Then you are either being willfully naive, stupid, or a terrifying combination of both.

 

This editorial helps explain where I'm coming from and what I've been trying to articulate:

 

Quote:

Originally posted by David Sirota @ Salon

 

Who’s a real progressive?

 

Obama and Paul both hold positions anathema to liberals. Voters need to choose which ones to overlook.

 

It’s rather sad that nearly every article written by a non-libertarian about Ron Paul begins with a disclaimer that the writer is not endorsing Paul for president. Yet, with a virulent case of Ron Paul Derangement Syndrome plaguing partisan Obama loyalists, it bears repeating if only to preempt future mischaracterizations and slander: I am not endorsing Ron Paul for president.

 

That said, I believe the argument being forwarded by progressive-minded Paul supporters is significant because it embodies a calculating pragmatism that highlights uncomfortable truths both about liberal priorities and about presidential power.

 

To review the basic Paul profile: When it comes to government social spending and regulation, Paul is more antithetical to progressive goals than any candidate running for the White House. This is indisputable. At the same time, though, when it comes to war, surveillance, police power, bank bailouts, cutting the defense budget, eliminating corporate welfare and civil liberties, Paul is more in line with progressive goals than any candidate running in 2012 (or almost any Democrat who has held a federal office in the last 30 years). This, too, is indisputable.

 

In seeing Paul’s economic views, positions on a woman’s right to choose, regulatory ideas and ties to racist newsletters as disqualifying factors for their electoral support, many self-identified liberal Obama supporters are essentially deciding that, for purposes of voting, those set of issues are simply more important to them than the issues of war, foreign policy, militarism, Wall Street bailouts, surveillance, police power and civil liberties — that is, issues in which Paul is far more progressive than the sitting president.

 

There’s certainly a logic to that position, and that logic fits within the conventionally accepted rubric of progressivism. But let’s not pretend here: Holding this position about what is and is not a disqualifying factor is a clear statement of priorities — more specifically, a statement that Paul’s odious economics, regulatory ideas, position on reproductive rights and ties to bigotry should be more electorally disqualifying than President Obama’s odious escalation of wars, drone killing of innocents, due-process-free assassinations, expansion of surveillance, increases in the defense budget, massive ongoing bank bailouts and continuation of the racist drug war.

 

By contrast, Paul’s progressive-minded supporters are simply taking the other position — they are basically saying that, for purposes of voting, President Obama’s record on militarism, civil liberties, foreign policy, defense budgets and bailouts are more disqualifying than Paul’s newsletter, economics, abortion and regulatory positions. Again, there’s an obvious logic to this position — one that also fits well within the conventional definition of progressivism. And just as Obama supporters shouldn’t pretend they aren’t expressing their preferences, Paul’s supporters shouldn’t do that either. Their support of the Republican congressman is a statement of personal priorities within the larger progressive agenda.

 

Hence, we reach one of those impossible questions: From a progressive perspective, which is a more legitimate camp to be in? In terms of ideological allegiance to the larger progressive agenda, I don’t really think there’s a right or wrong answer. But in terms of realpolitik, there’s a strong case to be made that Paul’s progressive-minded supporters understand something that Obama’s supporters either can’t or don’t want to: namely, that a presidential election is a vote for president, not a vote to elect the entire federal government. As such, when faced with candidates whom you agree with on some issues and totally disagree with on other issues, it’s perfectly rational — and wholly pragmatic — to consider one’s own multifaceted policy preferences in the context of what a prospective president will have the most unilateral power to actually enact.

 

With Paul, it just so happens that most of the ultra-progressive parts of his platform (and legislative career) correspond to the presidential powers that are most unilateral in nature. As President Obama so aptly proved when he ignored the War Powers Act during the Libya conflict and started drone wars in various other countries, a president can start and end military conflicts with the stroke of a pen — and without any congressional check on power. Likewise, as President Obama showed when he assassinated American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki and then his family without so much as a single criminal charge, a president can now trample or expand civil liberties with the stroke of the same pen. The president also appoints the chairman of the Federal Reserve bank, which now unilaterally grants trillions of dollars in bailouts without intervention from Congress. And, as President Obama proved with his administration’s crackdown on California’s marijuana laws, a president has far more operational control over the drug war than the congressional committees charged with oversight.

 

By contrast, the policy areas where Paul is most at odds with progressives are the areas Congress has far more control over — specifically, budgets and regulatory statutes.

 

So, for instance, Paul’s radical proposals to eliminate major social programs are certainly objectionable, and, if he were president, those proposals would certainly have an impact on the overall political debate. But the Constitution mandates that the federal budget is the purview of Congress. That explains why the final budget so often looks so different from the budget initially proposed by the president — and why a President Paul wouldn’t be able to do to the budget what he could do unilaterally to, say, America’s war policy. Likewise, President Paul may want to get rid of civil rights and clean water regulations, and his executive power over appointments and agency rule-making could certainly do great harm to the enforcement of those important regulations. But again, unlike wars, civil liberties, bailouts and domestic police power, Congress has far more control over those regulatory statutes than any single president — and additionally, many of those statutes permit private legal action (suing, etc.) as an (albeit, imperfect) means of enforcement.

 

Of course, an Obama supporter might argue that the set of issues they can agree with Paul on are less monumental than the set of issues they agree with Obama on. But don’t mistake such a conversation-ending declaration as fact. On the contrary, it’s merely a subjective opinion — and a debatable one at that. Indeed, Paul supporters would make a compelling case that it’s exactly the opposite — that the progressive side of Paul’s program relates to more pressing issues than Obama’s progressive positions in this, the age of multitrillion-dollar bailouts, deficit-exploding defense budgets, assaults on the most basic tenets of the Bill of Rights and what the Pentagon now calls “the era of persistent conflict” (read: Permanent War). And they have a strong case to make that by virtue of the modern presidency Paul would be guaranteed to actually enact the progressive parts of his program, whereas the progressive parts of President Obama’s program are more a question of congressional politics (a good example of that truism was the healthcare bill, which went from a mildly progressive White House proposal to a public-option-free boondoggle for the insurance and drug industries by the time Obama and his lobbyist friends finished massaging it through Congress).

 

In holding this pragmatic view, it doesn’t mean Paul’s progressive-minded supporters believe in the reactionary tenets of Paul’s agenda (eliminating major social programs, opposing civil rights laws, ending all taxes, having a history associated with racist newsletters, etc.) any more than it means Obama’s progressive-minded supporters are thrilled with all of the president’s ultra-conservative actions (wars, mass killing of civilians, trampling of civil liberties, bank bailouts, a racist drug war, etc.). It only means that there’s a calculation at work — one that takes into account the realities of presidential power.

 

Is this calculation reasonable, or at least defensible within the progressive coalition? I’d say yes (even though, again, I’m not endorsing Paul). To paraphrase the most standard apologia Democratic partisans use to defend President Obama (one overused with regard to Obama, IMHO), a president is not a Superman or a savior — on the issues in which he doesn’t have unilateral control, he has to work with Congress and therefore isn’t always the sole “decider” of policy outcomes. That’s especially the case at a moment when Washington is more gridlocked than ever.

 

Faced with that reality, and sick of a political system that is paralyzed by the Manichaean blood sport of red-versus-blue, many voters of all stripes are focusing primarily on the issues that the president has total control over. These issues, after all, are hardly insignificant — and they are the ones a presidential election can instantly change.

 

Paul’s progressive supporters seem to understand that truism, while many Obama supporters find it too inconvenient to acknowledge. That’s fine. In fact, that’s what democracy is all about — the freedom to make your own choice. But don’t think the choice being made by Paul’s supporters is so obvious a progressive litmus test when the same reductionism used to tar and feather those supporters (“they’re racist because of his newsletters!”) could be used against Obama backers (“they’re baby killers because of the president’s wars!”).

 

Despite media hype and activists’ glib talking points, such election choices between imperfect candidates are not so simple, nor should they be when a truly informed vote means factoring in the unspoken nuances of presidential power.

 

http://politics.salon.com/2012/01/10/what_makes_a_progressive_president/singleton/

 


Edited by Barry Woodward - 1/10/12 at 10:34pm
post #1407 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

Tell me one authentic reason that you like Romney other than he's a republican and you think he can beat Obama. While you're at it, tell me one thing he's going to do to improve the direction of our country. I'm dying to know (again, other than simply replacing a president you hate).


well, Romney is a "businessman" and we all know that "businessmen" are exactly what this country needs....I mean, GW Bush was a "businessman" and......um...

 

Maybe Romney will use his experience at Bain Capital to divvy up the US and sell it off to the surrounding countries to help pay down the deficit?

Top half of the country goes to Canada.

West Coast - Japan gets Southern CA...China gets NorCal, Oregon and WA  Southwest goes to Mexico ( they have to take NV..that's part of the deal ! ) 

The East Coast is a toss up...the UK defintiely get's some of those original states back

FL goes to Israel.

Mississippi + the other 'southern' states....I don't know...maybe Australia?

 

Then finally, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado are combined into one big Mormon state where Romney will reign with all the money received from the the liquidation sale.

 

but I forgot Alaska and Hawaii

 

Hawaii will be given back to the locals ?

Alaska will have a wall erected around it like in "Escape from New York" and Ron Paul will be dropped into it where he will be free to turn it into his libertarian dream state.

 

 

post #1408 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post


well, Romney is a "businessman" and we all know that "businessmen" are exactly what this country needs....I mean, GW Bush was a "businessman" and......um...

 

Maybe Romney will use his experience at Bain Capital to divvy up the US and sell it off to the surrounding countries to help pay down the deficit?

Top half of the country goes to Canada.

West Coast - Japan gets Southern CA...China gets NorCal, Oregon and WA  Southwest goes to Mexico ( they have to take NV..that's part of the deal ! ) 

The East Coast is a toss up...the UK defintiely get's some of those original states back

FL goes to Israel.

Mississippi + the other 'southern' states....I don't know...maybe Australia?

 

Then finally, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado are combined into one big Mormon state where Romney will reign with all the money received from the the liquidation sale.

 

but I forgot Alaska and Hawaii

 

Hawaii will be given back to the locals ?

Alaska will have a wall erected around it like in "Escape from New York" and Ron Paul will be dropped into it where he will be free to turn it into his libertarian dream state.

 

 


You missed an obvious one, give Alaska back to the Russians and then everyone can definitely see it from their houses without fear of ridicule!*

 

(*yes I know that's not actually what she said)

 

post #1409 of 10454

  Where the Hell does Romney get off blaming Obama for America's credit rating getting lowered?! It was the GOP who didn't want the debt ceiling raised, and made a big deal out of something that has been done dozens of times. Now Obama could have avoided this if a budget was passed while the Dems had control of the Congress or he could have invoked the 14Th Amendment. It was the GOP that put party in front of country.

 

  Romney, I like living in a America that isn't stuck in Iraq and where Bin Laden is dead!

post #1410 of 10454

So Paul, who has never budged on his beliefs in terms of how to run the country, would just stop caring about all the stuff he believes because it would be out of his control as President? Or would he fire off vetoes left and right, cause gridlock and generally impede the country's progress for four years? That's the best case scenario, by the way, the one that doesn't see his bullshit craziness leak into the legislative branch in any way.

post #1411 of 10454


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post


If you ever try to run for President, that statement may come back to haunt you.


Would she have your vote if she predicted a war between the sexes?

 

post #1412 of 10454

Anyone who thinks Romney cares about the middle class is insane. Actually, how can anyone listen to him talk and not have blood gush out of their ears? The guy is clearly a human price tag who will change his tune to anything that will get him elected. I know this is true to an extent for many politicians but Mitt takes it to a slimy new level. He wants to repeal Obamacare?He practically invented it. All of this nonsense about lowering the debt too. We all know that as soon as another Republican gets in the White House, the importance of lowering the debt will suddenly not matter again. Ugh, people.

post #1413 of 10454

Ron Paul is on Romney's side when it comes to "reorganizing" companies such that jobs get reorganized out of existence while whatever value a company has left gets reorganized into a big, fat check made out to Mr. Mitt Romney.  He says that kind of work is at the core of the free market.  He's right, of course, which shows how disgusting that whole concept should look to people. 

post #1414 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post

So Paul, who has never budged on his beliefs in terms of how to run the country, would just stop caring about all the stuff he believes because it would be out of his control as President? Or would he fire off vetoes left and right, cause gridlock and generally impede the country's progress for four years? That's the best case scenario, by the way, the one that doesn't see his bullshit craziness leak into the legislative branch in any way.

Don't forget the highlight of any Paul Presidency scenario, the Supreme Court nominations.

Romney's speech was hilarious. I loved the bit about accusing Obama of copying European policies, while the nations of the EU are strangling their respective people's economic recovery in real time with GOP-style "austerity" domestic spending cuts.
post #1415 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

Tell me one authentic reason why you like Romney other than he's a republican and you think he can beat Obama. While you're at it, tell me one thing he's going to do to improve the direction of our country. I'm dying to know (again, other than simply replacing a president you hate).



Snaieke? Taking you this long to come up with/web research an answer/talking point?

post #1416 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post



Snaieke? Taking you this long to come up with/web research an answer/talking point?



In almost a decade, not once have I seen Snaike reply to the request for a little intellectual honesty with anything but trollish silence.

 

That's not how he does things Parker, you know that.

 

Keep tilting at that windmill tho.

post #1417 of 10454

I'm just curious about the particular brand of bullshit we'll be hearing from him for the next nine months.

post #1418 of 10454

When Mitt Romney Came to Town is devastating but does a pretty good job explaining how leveraged buyouts work and how Romney and his pals sucked all the assets out of companies, replaced that value with debt, and then just watched it burn.  This is from the KB Toys section, which starts at about 7:58.

 

Quote:

Romney and Bain's cash rampage would ultimately slash jobs in nearly every state in the country, like popular toy seller KB Toys.  Romney and Bain bought the 80-year-old company in 2000, loaded KB Toys with millions in debt, then used the money to repurchase Bain's stock.  The debt was too staggering. 

 

By 2004, 365 stores had closed.  Romney called it creative destruction.  "Creative destruction does enhance productivity.  For an economy to thrive, as ours does, there are a lot of people who will suffer as a result of that." (Romney)

 

"Romney and the other top executives' take:  $120 million.  by 2009, the debt accumulated under Romney was too great.  KB Toys was no more.  Mitt Romney and Bain saw a 900% return on their investment.  Romney and Bain's profits, at the expense of 15,000 jobs, was described by the Boston Herald as 'Disgusting.'"

 

 

This is how leveraged buyouts perpetrated by outfits like Bain Capital work:  a vulture capital firm buys a profitable company with generous assets, tallies up its profit projections and pension projections for the next 5 years, along with the value of the property it's on, the inventory, the land, etc.  Then it takes out multi-million-dollar loans on those assets and projections using the company itself as collateral, socks that money away in its own stock (as in the KB Toys story above), then stands back and watches the company collapse under its new mountain of debt.  It's wealth transference from thousands of people to just a handful of people, and leaves unbelievable wreckage in its wake.

 

This is what Sam Zell is doing with newspapers including the LA Times.  It's the opposite of venture capitalism.  It plays no role in the productive economy and really only serves to allow a small number of people to suck everything down the marrow out of the bones of companies that took years, decades, lifetimes to build.  It's f***ing anti-American and should be illegal -- which it used to be until the 1980s deregulation craze brought it back.  Urgh. 

 

Snaieke, if you're a Romney supporter, you deserve what you're going to get, but the rest of us don't deserve to have this kingly self-enricher/job destroyer.

post #1419 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

When Mitt Romney Came to Town is devastating but does a pretty good job explaining how leveraged buyouts work and how Romney and his pals sucked all the assets out of companies, replaced that value with debt, and then just watched it burn.  This is from the KB Toys section, which starts at about 7:58.

 

 

This is how leveraged buyouts perpetrated by outfits like Bain Capital work:  a vulture capital firm buys a profitable company with generous assets, tallies up its profit projections and pension projections for the next 5 years, along with the value of the property it's on, the inventory, the land, etc.  Then it takes out multi-million-dollar loans on those assets and projections using the company itself as collateral, socks that money away in its own stock (as in the KB Toys story above), then stands back and watches the company collapse under its new mountain of debt.  It's wealth transference from thousands of people to just a handful of people, and leaves unbelievable wreckage in its wake.

 

This is what Sam Zell is doing with newspapers including the LA Times.  It's the opposite of venture capitalism.  It plays no role in the productive economy and really only serves to allow a small number of people to suck everything down the marrow out of the bones of companies that took years, decades, lifetimes to build.  It's f***ing anti-American and should be illegal -- which it used to be until the 1980s deregulation craze brought it back.  Urgh. 

 

Snaieke, if you're a Romney supporter, you deserve what you're going to get, but the rest of us don't deserve to have this kingly self-enricher/job destroyer.




I think that video (produced by Newt Gingrich's Super PAC) underscores the real success OWS has had in bringing this into mainstream conversation.   When you have Republican candidates go after Romney for this, something about that movement is resonating with the voting public.

post #1420 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

Tell me one authentic reason why you like Romney other than he's a republican and you think he can beat Obama. While you're at it, tell me one thing he's going to do to improve the direction of our country. I'm dying to know (again, other than simply replacing a president you hate).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

I'm just curious about the particular brand of bullshit we'll be hearing from him for the next nine months.


You might have gotten a reply but you became a bit of a cunt (nothing new) so, now you get the ol' go back and look at my posts in 2008 when I was also a Romney Supporter reply.

post #1421 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

When Mitt Romney Came to Town is devastating but does a pretty good job explaining how leveraged buyouts work and how Romney and his pals sucked all the assets out of companies, replaced that value with debt, and then just watched it burn.  This is from the KB Toys section, which starts at about 7:58.

 

 

This is how leveraged buyouts perpetrated by outfits like Bain Capital work:  a vulture capital firm buys a profitable company with generous assets, tallies up its profit projections and pension projections for the next 5 years, along with the value of the property it's on, the inventory, the land, etc.  Then it takes out multi-million-dollar loans on those assets and projections using the company itself as collateral, socks that money away in its own stock (as in the KB Toys story above), then stands back and watches the company collapse under its new mountain of debt.  It's wealth transference from thousands of people to just a handful of people, and leaves unbelievable wreckage in its wake.

 

This is what Sam Zell is doing with newspapers including the LA Times.  It's the opposite of venture capitalism.  It plays no role in the productive economy and really only serves to allow a small number of people to suck everything down the marrow out of the bones of companies that took years, decades, lifetimes to build.  It's f***ing anti-American and should be illegal -- which it used to be until the 1980s deregulation craze brought it back.  Urgh. 

 

Snaieke, if you're a Romney supporter, you deserve what you're going to get, but the rest of us don't deserve to have this kingly self-enricher/job destroyer.



Poor misinformed (as usual) YT. When Bain ran into trouble, Romney took over and fixed the company for a symbolic $1 salary. When the 2002 winter games came to him to fix them as they were 300+ million in the hole, Romney did so and made them profitable and donated his entire salary to charity. He also gave away his fathers inheritance to his Church. I'd tell you to read his backstory but to a Commie like you.. it wouldn't matter. Sorry, he aint Mao but you'll get over it.

 

I know you'll just ignore it like you do every other fact but here's the real facts behind Kb Toys and Bain.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-11/anti-romney-film-stretches-truth-while-taking-his-comments-out-of-context.html

 

 

Quote:

The Claims: After buying the company in 2000, Romney and Bain “loaded KB Toys with millions in debt then used the money to repurchase Bain stock.”

Background: KB, previously owned by Big Lots Inc. (BIG), was taken private in 2000 in a $305 million buyout by Bain. In 2002, KB’s directors approved a $121 million stock redemption from which Bain received a payout of $83 million, according to the Columbus Dispatch. The redemption was funded in part by $66 million in bank loans, according to a report in Forbes.

The Facts: The events reported in the film took place at a time when Romney said he didn’t have a role managing Bain. Romney “has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity” since retiring in February 1999 to head the organizing Committee for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, according to his August 2011 financial disclosure filed with the Federal Election Commission.

KB’s Demise

The Claims: By 2009, the debt accumulated by KB after Bain took control “was too great. KB Toys was no more.”

Background: KB closed almost half of its 1,200 stores after seeking bankruptcy protection in 2004. The retailer filed for bankruptcy again in 2008 and liquidated its remaining 431 stores.

The Facts: A unit of the private equity firm Prentice Capital Management took a 90 percent stake in KB after it emerged from bankruptcy the first time in 2005. The company said market forces, not its debt, were to blame for the first bankruptcy, according to the Boston Business Journal. The same weak retail environment that prompted the company to file for bankruptcy the second time also contributed to the bankruptcy of other chains such as Linens ‘n Things Inc. and Circuit City Stores Inc. (CCTYQ)

 

 

 

post #1422 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post



Poor misinformed (as usual) YT. When Bain ran into trouble, Romney took over and fixed the company for a symbolic $1 salary. When the 2002 winter games came to him to fix them as they were 300+ million in the hole, Romney did so and made them profitable and donated his entire salary to charity. He also gave away his fathers inheritance to his Church. I'd tell you to read his backstory but to a Commie like you.. it wouldn't matter. Sorry, he aint Mao but you'll get over it.

 


Snaieke, there are two Bains: the venture capital company and the vulture capital company.  They do different things.  And giving money to his church doesn't assuage the guilt he should bear for extracting money from companies like KB Toys, leaving them to crumble under the weight of the dept he put on them, and enriching himself and his partners with that cash.  Those companies that Bain and other leverage buyout outfits destroy add up, and you have economic destruction on a massive scale, a huge transfer of wealth from an economy of millions into the pockets of a few. 

 

Also, how am I a commie? 

post #1423 of 10454

I don't think yt is suggesting Romney wasn't a boon for his company....

post #1424 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post


Snaieke, there are two Bains: the venture capital company and the vulture capital company.  They do different things.  And giving money to his church doesn't assuage the guilt he should bear for extracting money from companies like KB Toys, leaving them to crumble under the weight of the dept he put on them, and enriching himself and his partners with that cash.  Those companies that Bain and other leverage buyout outfits destroy add up, and you have economic destruction on a massive scale, a huge transfer of wealth from an economy of millions into the pockets of a few. 

 

Also, how am I a commie? 



Read the bloomberg quote, i added it a minute after i hit submit.

 

post #1425 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post



Read the bloomberg quote, i added it a minute after i hit submit.

 


The fact that two cannibalistic vulture capitalist firms ate KB's heart doesn't make what Bain did any more palatable.  And of course they blamed market forces -- they always do and it's almost always BS.  You can say it's market forces when you're saddled with so much debt there aren't enough toys in the world to pay for it. 

 

And you act like Romney never lies.  Romney always lies.  Are you serious, Snaieke? 

 

I still don't see how any of this criticism makes me a commie.

post #1426 of 10454

If someone cares, I'm on suicide watch in the Ron Paul thread.

post #1427 of 10454

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post

If someone cares, I'm on suicide watch in the Ron Paul thread.

 

 

 

I'd put a blanket over your shoulders and hand you a cup of coffee, but I can't, so have some rep.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke
... now you get the ol' go back and look at my posts in 2008 when I was also a Romney Supporter.

 

I firmly believe that if the economy had visibly tanked earlier in 2008, the nominations would have gone to Romney and Clinton, instead of McCain and Obama.

post #1428 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post

If someone cares, I'm on suicide watch in the Ron Paul thread.



You're doing great things over there Spook. Please don't stop.

 

bear-hug-10090026380.jpeg

post #1429 of 10454

oh, hell yeah....

 

Quote:

Colbert polling at 5% in South Carolina

The comedian isn't actually in the race, but pollsters have found that he'd be ahead of real-life candidate Jon Huntsman

 

Stephen Colbert is currently polling at 5% in South Carolina, better even than real-life candidate Jon Huntsman, who logs just 4% of prospective voters.

 

The comedian has no plans to actually jump into the race. The survey, conducted by pollsters with a sense of humor at Public Policy Polling, was undertaken when Colbert tried (and failed) to sponsor the South Carolina primary, which will be held on Jan 21.

 

Colbert also tried (and failed) to get on the ballot along with a referendum about "whether corporations are people or only people are people."

 

In a statement on the poll, Public Policy Polling graciously announced "our team at PPP decided if he couldn't get all that stuff on the actual ballot, we could at least poll it for him."

 

So PPP tapped 1,112 likely Republican primary voters, and found that Colbert is polling at 5%, putting him in sixth place, just a hair ahead of Jon Huntsman and soundly trouncing Buddy Roemer's 1%.

 

But on the more serious matter of corporate personhood, PPP found Colbert, who grew up in South Carolina, would have had support on his proposed referendum. Only a third (33%) of likely voters think that 'corporations are people' compared to 67% who think that 'only people are people.'

 

Mitt Romney famously referenced the Supreme Court's controversial Citizens United ruling in August by telling a protester at a campaign event that "corporations are people, my friend."

 

But supporters of every Republican candidate believe that 'only people are people,' including two-thirds (66%) of Romney's.

 

 

Colbert is going to have a "special announcement" on tomorrow night's show

post #1430 of 10454
A partial transcript and full video of Newt's 28 minute attack ad, focusing on Romney's tenure with Bain Capital and the damage done, can be found here.

Looking at it, I find myself persuaded by the arguments coming from MSNBC's commentators Tuesday night; that Newt is essentially no longer running for President, and has focused his efforts on punishing his party for failing to support him. The ad is merciless.
post #1431 of 10454

Interesting how the mother of the modern Republican party is now eating its young, essentially.

 

Mitt certainly isn't helping himself by saying that people who jeer at him for his wealth are just jealous.

post #1432 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post

Interesting how the mother of the modern Republican party is now eating its young, essentially.

 

Mitt certainly isn't helping himself by saying that people who jeer at him for his wealth are just jealous.


I have to admit to that I am experiencing a good deal of schadenfreude with regards to this.

 

Karma is a bitch.

 

 

 

post #1433 of 10454

I thought about posting this in the TV forum but I think it would be more relevant here.

 

Bill Moyers is back on TV !!

 

Moyers & Company

 

Heard a little promo piece about it on NPR/Fresh Air his morning

Bill Moyers Is Back On TV — And Better Than Ever

 

 

post #1434 of 10454


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post


You might have gotten a reply but you became a bit of a cunt (nothing new) so, now you get the ol' go back and look at my posts in 2008 when I was also a Romney Supporter reply.



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post



Poor misinformed (as usual) YT.

 

He also gave away his fathers inheritance to his Church. I'd tell you to read his backstory but to a Commie like you.. it wouldn't matter. Sorry, he aint Mao but you'll get over it.

 

I know you'll just ignore it like you do every other fact but here's the real facts behind Kb Toys and Bain.

 

 

 

Sure, buddy.

ETA: If you're not too busy being a condescending, sarcastic asshole (and before you call me a cunt again, maybe you should read some of the own shit you type), maybe you wouldn't mind explaining to me why Romney is your guy despite the fact that you also hate Obama's health care plan, which is essentially a nationalized version of Romney's plan for Massachusetts. 
 

And in case you were wondering, I did look back at your 2008 posts about Romney. LOL @ you trying to make the argument that $250K a year is "middle class."


Edited by Parker - 1/12/12 at 1:20pm
post #1435 of 10454

I feel like Newt has made the calculation that Romney can't win anyway, so why not, out of revenge, bludgeon Mitt for his merciless attack ads.

post #1436 of 10454

I have to say I really dislike Newt using Sorkin's favorite title font for this thing.

post #1437 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post

I feel like Newt has made the calculation that Romney can't win anyway, so why not, out of revenge, bludgeon Mitt for his merciless attack ads.

 

I don't see it that way. Newt got a taste for the presidency when his poll numbers were high, he thinks he can win ("there's no doubt I'm going to be the nominee", lol) but this is his one and only chance, so he's playing all or nothing.

post #1438 of 10454

No, I agree with Judd. I don't think Newt's under the delusion that he can win the presidency, or even the nomination. But he's bent on slitting Romney's throat as he goes down. My guess is that Newt believes his own bullshit, sees himself as some sort of "true" conservative and Romney, far more than the others in the race, as a conservative in name only, and he can't abide being beaten by a pretender.

post #1439 of 10454

Well, the Republican Party is supposed to be the party that nominates the next big guy on the bench. Reagan had been in politics for years, with two attempts before he was nominated and won. GHW Bush ran before winning on the back of Reagan. Bob Dole was the nominee despite all clear signs that was a bad idea. McCain was the next man, but GW Bush managed to use his father as a Disney Fastpass line holder to jump infront of McCain. That meant McCain was still next inline when he clearly shouldn't have been.  If Hilary was the nominee, he still would have lost. According to this logic, Newt was the next powerhouse Republican in line. Romney used his money to cut line. 

 

A Wall Street banker for President after Wall Street raped and pillaged? What masterminds at the RNC thinks this is a good idea?

 

I can see Newt doing the math and realizing he is too old to do this again in 4 years. If the party won't have him, he will burn it to the ground.

 

 

post #1440 of 10454
post #1441 of 10454

I love how the movie introduces KB Toys, with the muppets ad, then proceeds to tell us how Romney and pals gutted it while cutting to a kid watching same ad but with a scared expression.

post #1442 of 10454

I love how everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Rudy Guilliani to Mitt Romney are attacking Newt for doing an ad like this but haven't said anything about the content of the ad itself.   Just things like "You sound like Michael Moore" or "You're just envious of rich people." or "This is how the system works".     Nothing about the film being false.   I hope the Obama campaign is taking notes.   This is what you do with a Billion Dollar campaign budget.

post #1443 of 10454

Obamas not going after his Wall st benefactors or the system that supports them. I'd have though that'd be obvious by now.

post #1444 of 10454

Just incredible (and hilariously) poor taste. 

 

http://seamus2012.com/

post #1445 of 10454

newt.jpg

post #1446 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

I love how everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Rudy Guilliani to Mitt Romney are attacking Newt for doing an ad like this but haven't said anything about the content of the ad itself.   Just things like "You sound like Michael Moore" or "You're just envious of rich people." or "This is how the system works".     Nothing about the film being false.   I hope the Obama campaign is taking notes.   This is what you do with a Billion Dollar campaign budget.


I'm sure there's a whole team of people watching all of this and taking notes.

post #1447 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post

I can see Newt doing the math and realizing he is too old to do this again in 4 years. If the party won't have him, he will burn it to the ground.

Nah, he just thinks Callista will be too old to be First Lady by then, and he can't afford another divorce.

This is pure ragequitting, completely in character with his resignation from Congress when his own party said he couldn't be Speaker of the House any more.
post #1448 of 10454

Well sociopathic narcissists not getting what they want tend to slip into meltdowns of toddler tantrum proportions usually don't they? Isn't that the rule?

post #1449 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post

Obamas not going after his Wall st benefactors or the system that supports them. I'd have though that'd be obvious by now.


Bookmark my post, the Obama campaign will bring this up. It will probably popup in a debate, it's guaranteed.

post #1450 of 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

newt.jpg



The only thing stopping this from being perfect is the lack of a Photoshopped Bane mask on there.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The 2012 Elections Thread