McJob Creator

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed May 23, 2012 4:01 pm

Romney's always touting his skills as a "Job Creator". He didn't say what those jobs would pay and whether they're living wage or not, but he did give us a subliminal hint yesterday. You know these guys always set up and frame the background in these photo ops very carefully, so why show a McDonald's, of all things, in the background? Is he giving us a truth in advertising that these are the types of jobs you can expect under his presidency, burger flippers and french fry cooks?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu May 24, 2012 5:50 am

I wonder if all the people working at Staples think like you do

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu May 24, 2012 12:20 pm

I have a sudden craving for fries.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu May 24, 2012 3:45 pm

I like Wendy's fries better. Even got some for lunch today.

Ya know woody, all these smooth politicians, including Obama, try to make sure that the background in any speech or photo op carries some type of subliminal message. What's Romney trying to say with this one?

And I'd rather work at Staples. Better perks and less fattening (I have worked in a burger joint in the past).

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu May 24, 2012 6:47 pm

If the background is always carefully chosen... wouldn't they carefully choose a non-negative message for their background?
The very fact that it's not a nice message, seems to indicate to me that they probably haven't carefully chosen this message.

Either that or their demographic has some pretty wacked out viewpoints. Dumb explanation tho

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri May 25, 2012 12:14 pm

Either one works roid. Either Romney's not paying attention to his surroundings when doing photo ops, or he and/or his handler's are idiots.

How about this little gaff in a Philly school classroom.? A Freudian slip back to those not-so-pleasant memories of his own dog troubles maybe?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri May 25, 2012 5:19 pm

It's pretty simple to explain background TC. McDonalds is to remind people where the only place to get a job is under the Obama regime

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri May 25, 2012 8:06 pm

dog incident? *googles*

Wikipedia wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamus_incident
During a 1983 family vacation, Mitt Romney transported his family's pet dog, Seamus, on the roof of an automobile for 12 hours.[2][3] This incident became a subject of media attention for Romney in both the 2008 presidential election and the 2012 presidential election.

In June 1983, Romney and his family were preparing for their annual vacation from their Belmont, Massachusetts home to a family cottage in Beach O'Pines, Ontario. Seamus was enclosed in a carrier that Romney had equipped with a windshield and strapped on the roof of the family's Chevrolet Caprice station wagon. Sometime during the 650-mile trip from Massachusetts to Ontario, the dog became afflicted with diarrhea, causing excrement to flow down the windows of the car. Romney stopped at a gas station to wash Seamus, the carrier and the car, then put Seamus back in his carrier, and continued the 12-hour trip to the family's vacation home.

that is...
that is......
HILARIOUS

Personally i don't think i'm too interested in these sorts of "i herd my opponent once kicked a chicken" polling politics games. They make for fun *dog on a surfboard* news stories sure, but it angers me that it actually effects how people vote. I mean how ★■◆●ing dull are voters? le-sigh. Negative politics actually does have a bit of a blowback effect - the sort of low dirt-digging can turn more reasonable people off of your campaign.
Policy is where it's at.

Mind you... sadly these political electioneers probably DO know EXACTLY what they're doing, playing the numbers, the fact that it must actually work (or why else would they be doing it) shows the pitifully low state that democracy is in atm. Which shows the pitifully low state that humanity in general is in atm.
Well i guess there's a lot of players influencing the game, incl the media who profits from and thus encourages this kindof ★■◆●. It's a complex circus.

I'm just not sure why we people here, in this thread, need play along with these bull★■◆● games.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri May 25, 2012 8:21 pm

roid wrote:Mind you... sadly these political electioneers probably DO know EXACTLY what they're doing, playing the numbers, the fact that it must actually work (or why else would they be doing it) shows the pitifully low state that democracy is in atm. Which shows the pitifully low state that humanity in general is in atm.
Well i guess there's a lot of players influencing the game, incl the media who profits from and thus encourages this kindof ****. It's a complex circus.

Points for pragmatism. Right on.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat May 26, 2012 4:54 pm

What about character? Maybe these things are only mindless trash talk that opponents throw out there to stain each other, but I think that someone who forcibly cut the hair of a classmate because he thought the guy was weird or queer, and tossed his dog into a carrier and strapped it on top of his car, and then did it again, even after said dog freaked out and sh*t all over the car, has a few character issues, namely he's a heartless cad.

That's not including his superb work at Bain Capital, where they took perfectly good companies, plucked out all the best parts just for profit, loaded up the remains with massive debt so that bankruptcy was inevitable, and fired a lot of hard working people who had formerly living wage jobs. I'm more inclined to think a Romney Presidency will leave us with only jobs that pay a non-living wage. Plus, he wants to raise taxes on those least able to afford it, while giving the top tier an even bigger break. He'll cement the Plutocracy for eternity.

http://www.examiner.com/article/romney- ... t-the-rich

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat May 26, 2012 8:58 pm

That policy stuff you mentioned is all that really needs to be said. ie: if he's a dick then it'll probably come out in policy choices.
And from what you mentioned, it sounds like it is comming out in his policy choices.
So.... the system seems to be working!

I mean lets take Obama as a counter example.
He seems like a great guy, wonderful wonderful wonderful.
But there has been unforseen consequences no? Strange off-character policy decisions (mostly partisan appeasement bull★■◆● designed primarily to hamstring his efforts afaik) that were not predicted by his voter base.
But i'd bet that the appeasements were written into Obama's policies from the start - during his election campaigns. He probably had to, so as not to alienate moderates, he needed the votes. they all need the votes.

Anything of consequence has gotta be reflected in policy. If it's not reflected in policy, then it's just a placebo. Policy is kinda all that matters, the rest is just distraction. And plenty (most) of it is outright misdirection and media political games we'd all do better to rise above.
It's so much more useful to discuss predicted outcomes of policy decisions. I mean presidents come and go, but ideology, policy, these are the real game pieces we're playing with in the longrun. Polititians are just clones, same old same old.

Sure, one can use personality profiling to predict policy desisions, but why bother when the policies are already right there. I mean they DO match up right? Dicks do make dicky policies right?

(i dunno what the competing policies even are lol, this election hasn't really taken my interest)

Are we not talking about policy, because it's just the same old same old blue vs red policies just like always ? Honest question, i dunno really what the policies are.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat May 26, 2012 9:44 pm

roid wrote:...Sure, one can use personality profiling to predict policy desisions, but why bother when the policies are already right there. I mean they DO match up right? Dicks do make dicky policies right?...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

AND, Romney's a flip-flopping unprincipled dick at that, so no one knows for sure what his policies really are now or are going to be in the future. Shall we roll the economic dice.........

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun May 27, 2012 9:06 am

In the world we live in, I would prefer a dick over a pansy any day.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun May 27, 2012 11:08 am

Why Spidey, I didn't know you swung that way.

"Dick" Lugar, a solid and tried and true long time Republican, who was used to working across the isle to get things done AND who was defeated after only 3 weeks of negative adds funded by big money interest tea party supporters, hit the nail on the head with what's going on in our country's politics.

It's individualism verses community, and the individualism is winning right now. I don't see how that mindset will keep our country together as a nation. The perfect parable to this is contained in the story "Lord of the Flies". The liberals and old line conservatives of the past are represented by Ralph, while the tea party is represented by Jack.

http://www.gradesaver.com/lord-of-the-f ... or-themes/

I've become so disillusioned and afraid of the new conservatives and their ideals that I'll vote against anyone who represents them, even if my other choice stinks.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun May 27, 2012 12:32 pm

Your usage of the term “vs.” makes it sound like it has to be one or the other. I would argue that it takes a well balanced blend of the two, to make an economy/society work properly.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun May 27, 2012 12:58 pm

I agree wholeheartedly. But since when has the new "me" prosperity conservatism, aka, the tea party, wanted to work with liberals? Lugar was a long time conservative, but even he wasn't conservative enough for the tea party. All I hear are nasty cries about how those liberal and socialist ideas need to be completely vanquished. Moderate is now a dirty word. I've heard nothing about incorporating both conservative and liberal ideas into our politics, as in' work across the isle or compromise, to get the job done. We're more polarized than ever, and the candidates are kissing the rears of the most extreme wings of their parties just to get in office.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon May 28, 2012 12:47 pm

Well, either way, we're going to get those lovely Bush policies that got us into this mess all over again if we elect the RomneyBushBot. Romney, just like what Obama did right after he got elected to office, is hiring his party's predecessor's flunkies. Where's the fresh meat and ideas with these guys? It's always wash, rinse and repeat, even if it didn't work the first time around.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:02 pm

It's called "ruling the masses" and I think a great deal of us are looked at as inferior and less evolved.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:11 pm

So they think they're smarter than the masses? Not all the masses. When things get too bad for those stupid masses, revolution is usually the response. But can even a revolution oust these smug, indifferent and out-of-touch leaders. Look at Syria? Assad is so entrenched, he can kill women and children, then flip the bird at the world and still stay in power.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:16 pm

I doubt very seriously there would be a revolution. No time soon anyways. They have everyone fighting for different teams and when that guy wins they feel satisfaction. It keeps us split apart. It's just like gameshows, you see someone else win $100,000, you get a thrill too.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon May 28, 2012 1:28 pm

It's like at the end of Bush's presidency, where the media kept everyone stirred up against him. People were beginning to get pissed , so here comes the first black president chanting "Yes We Can" and appealing to the young and inexperienced. Maybe the most ineffectual president of our time. Now, I know Slick will chime in saying otherwise, but cheers and chants havn't fixed a thing and he is an exact continuation of Bush's policies. I think the last real president we had that cared about community and making this country strong was Clinton. He may have not knew how to keep his peepee zipped up but he was a true American with some foresight and inside information. His presidency is most times described as a frentic attempt to reduce the national deficit and get us out of debt to other nations. Make us the lender. Now remember, this was at the time that NAFTA passed, the Soviet Union disbanded, The Berlin Wall came down, the European Union was formed and we were giving up military bases in the Pacific, hell, I was 19 years old and could see it.

EDIT: Oh yeah, China said piss off

Burlyman · Post by **Burlyman** » Mon May 28, 2012 6:01 pm

politicians and their "job creation" heh

You mean people exist who think Romney is actually qualified enough to run for public office?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon May 28, 2012 6:11 pm

Burlyman wrote:politicians and their "job creation" heh

You mean people exist who think Romney is actually qualified enough to run for public office?

And Obama was?

Burlyman · Post by **Burlyman** » Mon May 28, 2012 6:13 pm

now we're getting somewhere. =P

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon May 28, 2012 9:28 pm

flip wrote:It's like at the end of Bush's presidency, where the media kept everyone stirred up against him. People were beginning to get pissed , so here comes the first black president chanting "Yes We Can" and appealing to the young and inexperienced. Maybe the most ineffectual president of our time. Now, I know Slick will chime in saying otherwise, but cheers and chants havn't fixed a thing and he is an exact continuation of Bush's policies. I think the last real president we had that cared about community and making this country strong was Clinton. He may have not knew how to keep his peepee zipped up but he was a true American with some foresight and inside information. His presidency is most times described as a frentic attempt to reduce the national deficit and get us out of debt to other nations. Make us the lender. Now remember, this was at the time that NAFTA passed, the Soviet Union disbanded, The Berlin Wall came down, the European Union was formed and we were giving up military bases in the Pacific, hell, I was 19 years old and could see it.

EDIT: Oh yeah, China said piss off

Bushie didn't need the media to stir people up against him. He and Darth Cheney screwed up everything all by their little selfies, and enjoyed their time and endless taxpayer money doing it. Then they left the HUGE mess for the next guy, hopefully a Democrat, to clean up, and brother, was it a BIG mess. As a side note, you know why the Post Office is going broke? Guess were Bush and crew got some of those billions to run their 2 little wars off the books? Why, they raided the Post Office pension fund of course, which they also now have to fund 75 years in advance curtsey of the “Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006”! WOW, raid it, then nuke it! Screw those unions, yee haa!

All Clinton did was kiss Republican butt just long enough to look bipartisan. Then he went partying, jogging, jogging, jogging......... and got a few blowjobs on the side, which was the only thing that those moralizing Republicans could finally bring him down with. But hey, he was slick and just continued the job of destruction that Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan started.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon May 28, 2012 10:04 pm

Well, like in the case of China's growing dominance in all areas, if you didn't hear it on the news constantly, you wouldn't know nothing about it

.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue May 29, 2012 5:30 pm

Nixon was responsible for starting the process that eventually normalized relations between the U.S. and China. Thank him for the East rising in power NOW.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue May 29, 2012 6:44 pm

Lol. It's all Nixon's fault now? What's wrong with normalized relations with China?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue May 29, 2012 6:44 pm

Nixon was responsible for starting the process that eventually normalized relations between the U.S. and China. Thank him for the East rising in power NOW.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue May 29, 2012 6:45 pm

flip wrote:Lol. It's all Nixon's fault now? What's wrong with normalized relations with China?

of course it's Nixon's fault, he was a Republican

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed May 30, 2012 4:23 pm

CUDA wrote:
flip wrote:Lol. It's all Nixon's fault now? What's wrong with normalized relations with China?
of course it's Nixon's fault, he was a Republican

Well, don't Republicans always want to do things that are "good for bidness"? Getting a toehold in trade with China, probably all to get access to that huge, cheap labor pool sounds like something that Republicans would be championing, even preaching.

EDIT: Romney is kissing Trump's birther butt now. I like George Will's comment on that development last weekend. He called Trump 2 words I haven't very much, if ever. A "bloviating ignoramus"! My spell checker doesn't even have that first one!

George Will wrote:I do not understand the cost-benefit here,” Will said on ABC’s This Week. “The costs are clear. The benefit - what voter is going to vote for him because of Donald Trump?"

"The cost of appearing with a bloviating ignoramus is obvious, it seems to me.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed May 30, 2012 10:44 pm

oh man. the whole "Only Nixon could goto China" thing makes me rage so hard. How people can interpret it as anything other than the sad consequence of cultural propaganda saturation is beyond me.

Only Nixon could goto China, because Nixon and his red-scare cohorts had successfully made China such a third-rail disaster that no-one could ever touch it without risking a tidalwave of political-points anti-communist illiterate redneck warhawk slobber DSFARGEG. It is an illustration of a successful creation and advantageous manipulation of the third-rail. It's also the illustration how such propaganda techniques can quickly and easily lead to personality-cult types of outcomes, which is why it makes me so uncomfortable when people seem ignorant of it's lessons.
Only Nixon
Only Nixon
Only Nixon
This is not a healthy kindof phrase to be recited in a democracy.

Nixon and his cohorts CREATED the very situation that allowed only Nixon to goto China. To me it reminds me of when you hear about the sad state of affairs in one of those 3rd world fake-democratic countries where the leader passes a law that bypasses term limits and allows him to remain in power indefinitely (ie: no more democracy).

Goddamn i have had a lot of caffeine.
If someone could tell me that everyone knows what i'm talking about, and i'm speaking to the choir here. That would calm me down somewhat.

(and in b4 some snark about Obama subtley encouraging a Messiah mentality to get ellected, THAT'S NOT GOOD EITHER!)

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:26 pm

^^ awesome post.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu May 31, 2012 5:55 am

Roid, however your caffine fueled mind wants to parse it, Tricky Dick Nikon was the guy who got into China's pants and thus gets the deserved credit. Obama OTOH, was labeled a messiah before he actually did anything (as evidenced by his Nobel Peace Award).

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:48 am

Hmmmm, the third rail boogeyman used to put fear into the masses for political gain. Yep, still being used today.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... et-threat/

Along with the immigrant boogeyman and the Muslim boogeyman. Doesn't matter whether they're threats or not, politicians always like to use the boogeyman to get votes. Yes, the Dems do it too.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu May 31, 2012 4:38 pm

Or TC, how about this one:

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu May 31, 2012 10:52 pm

I wish like hell everyone would realize those guys are on the same side.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:15 pm

flip wrote:I wish like hell everyone would realize those guys are on the same side.

Yep, they're both sides of the same crooked, dirty coin. Romney's got his own little connections to the Solydnra mess woodchip. He's got quite a few skeletons in his closet too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/3 ... 60505.html

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/hea ... s-solyndra

I really wish there was a more visible and viable candidate to challenge the two top crooks we're stuck with, maybe someone like Buddy Roemer.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:34 pm

Ron Paul is all your gonna get. Choose now or forever hold your peace

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:15 am

Wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if you paid me.

Romney's a lying SOB too, woodchip. And it was Bush who started this whole Solyndra mess. Romney needs to check his facts on who did what and when.

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-romney ... nance.html