DescentBB

.....geez-o-pete!! The one guy in the GOP race who at least gave the impression of understanding how to run a big-time campaign and he blurts out the above? Really? Hell, I know the context, and actually the whole thing made a sort of sense, if you accept a certain view of how heathcare should work(I don't, but appreciate the difference of opinion). But still, this is big time politics and everyone. and I mean everyone, knows that that tiny segment is going to pop up whenever the subject of Bain Capital and corporate financial raiders comes up.

I've described,elsewhere, the GOP nominating process so far as a virtual Clown-car. Yesterday was Mitt's turn to jump out and spray seltzer into his pants. Obama's folks must be loving this stuff.

I hate to defend Romney in any shape or form, but the quote was taken out of context, or at least so he claims.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 9302.story

TC did you read what I wrote?

Yeah, I understand what he was going for, but dear lord, that was an insanely stupid thing to say. This primary race has been more hilarious than any sitcom.

I imagine what you see in the primary is across the board.

callmeslick wrote:TC did you read what I wrote?

Yeah. You DID notice the "wink" I put at the end of my "Romney defense". I tried to sound less liberal and more impartial, buuuuut I couldn't do it with a straight face.

However, what Romney DID while at Bain Capital and Newt's Superpac attack ad that's running right now profiling the details of that tenure may do more damage in the long run. However, I see Fox News is calling it for Romney in New Hampshire. We'll see how things progress as the Republican circular firing squad really gets going.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... 0V20120110

The 3 minute YouTube Trailer:

"When Mitt Romney Came to Town"

I just don't see this one, it is fundamentally capitalist. If someone does a bad job, you should be able to fire them.

If he said "I like fireing people" then thats cold, but the "to be able" is a core princple of this nation.

Yeah, you're right, the actual content of his message wasn't much to raise an eyebrow over. But the wording he used was pretty much the last thing you want to say the day before the nation's first primary. It was a pretty significant faux pas, if nothing else.

Crazy!

well I think with the exception of slick, I think most of us on this board would like to be able to fire Obama
So in that sense I agree with Romney. not to mention that trying to use that against him might not be such a good Idea. especially to those that work in the auto industry. Since after GM / Chrysler took the Bailout Money and then having to close 2000 dealerships around the country.

Gooberman wrote:I just don't see this one, it is fundamentally capitalist. If someone does a bad job, you should be able to fire them.

If he said "I like fireing people" then thats cold, but the "to be able" is a core princple of this nation.

But why BOAST about it like it's a "good" thing, especially coming from someone who is now a poster child for the new "Vulture Capitalist"? Sure, a business owner needs the ability to fire bad employees, but it sure sounds cold, calculating and uncaring to all the unemployed in this country right now. And guess who NEEDS all the votes he can get to be pres? Idiot.

But even worse, on the Today Show, he doubles down. He accuses those who oppose him, Dems and some Republicans (aka Newt) of "envy" for the rich and starting "class warfare", and that we should respect the (thieves), er ...... 1 percenters, because they give us crappy jobs with no pensions or health care in return. He's a typical bully, blame others for the trouble he and his ilk caused. Whine, whine. He's essentially saying: "Don't be so anti-private enterprise. It does good for workers ALL the time" (my interpretation here ). Don't get me wrong, he's got "financial success for business" written all over him. But that success sure doesn't "trickle down" to working America much.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/ ... 9#45955255

This coming from a guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, rarely had to work at manual labor and made a lot of his money as a "management consultant" and then working at a private equity firm by cost cutting and "firing people". Oh, and that "time" and "hard work" he claims he spent as a "poor", hard working, long suffering french missionary is now in question too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2830939/posts

AND, as a bonus, he used it as a draft dodge during the Vietnam War. Oooooooooh! A twofer! Family AND Church reasons!

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/ ... erred.html

At least Ron Paul had the temerity to do his duty and actually GO to war, even with a family.

I'm just waiting for me free pony.

Maybe if he becomes president, he will fire all of the useless bureaucrats.

One can only dream…

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, you know, I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me,” Romney went on to say."

So like good political word parser, it would seem that people like Slick think changing the above statement by erasing the words "being able" somehow makes them euridite in the realm of political punditry. Sadly all they show is a gross ineptitude at knowing how intelligent most people really are. So read the sentences as Romney said them and not how the democratic spin machine would like you to read them.

...a gross ineptitude at knowing how intelligent most people really are

Are you looking at the same electorate I am, woody?

Well, I think most people can figure out when someone’s words have been altered, and still not be able to figure out the more subtle or sophisticated aspects of politics.

The actual wording in question was, "I like being able to fire people" and in an economy where far too many of our fellow citizens have been fired, often due to financial s**t-weasels like Romney, it doesn't look to good to be smiling and saying those words.
And that, and only that, was my point. It was really dumb politics, especially for a guy born into a political family and who has been running for something or other for much of the past 20 years.

Noting the other comments regarding 'class warfare' and such, it is sort of a hoot watching the GOP ignite the whole 'rich vs the rest of you' argument. Saves Obama more work. Heck, he's going to be able to save some of that Billion Dollar war chest.

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, you know, I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me,” Romney went on to say."

Well, as an investment capital manager, he sure liked firing a lot of people. I'm betting not all of them did a bad job either. Must be a sadist because it sounds like he liked doing it. He didn't create jobs, he streamlined them to make more profit for pigs like him and his bosses. His job was to remove the skeleton of companies and leave the rest of the meat to rot.

A lot of you might like what he does, but he doesn't represent me, and most of the wage earners in this country I'm guessing. Unless people are stupid enough to fall for the "I'm a job creator" crap Republicans keep shoving on us as our jobs savior that is. This will be his weak spot in trying to beat Obama while we have an economy filled with people fired by him and his crony capitalists. The Dems will have a field day if Romney gets the nomination. What's funny is that Newt has paved their way for them.

Greed may be good for him and other vulture capitalists, but not for everyone else.

I've noticed the Newt/Perry gang have formed an alliance to go after Romney. My prediction if Romney stumbles, it'll be Newt for Pres and Perry for VP. If people have the time, here's Newt's 28 minute attack ad. The audio has some problems.

The King Of Bain

The statement was absolutely true as stated. And it was a completely idiotic way to say it.
It makes me worry about his judgement.

tunnelcat wrote:

Well, as an investment capital manager, he sure liked firing a lot of people. I'm betting not all of them did a bad job either. Must be a sadist because it sounds like he liked doing it. He didn't create jobs, he streamlined them to make more profit for pigs like him and his bosses. His job was to remove the skeleton of companies and leave the rest of the meat to rot.

You sure you're not talking about Obama and GM? How many jobs and dealership employee's did Obama sadistically cut just so he could give the UAW pig bosses stolen stock shares? How capable was Obama giving Solyndra 500 million knowing full well they were going bankrupt? Compared to Romney, Obama is like a kid trying to sell lemonade by setting up his stand at the back end of a alley.

woodchip wrote:You sure you're not talking about Obama and GM? How many jobs and dealership employee's did Obama sadistically cut just so he could give the UAW pig bosses stolen stock shares? How capable was Obama giving Solyndra 500 million knowing full well they were going bankrupt? Compared to Romney, Obama is like a kid trying to sell lemonade by setting up his stand at the back end of a alley.

Didn't say Obama wasn't of the same ilk. He is. I just don't want to replace one problem with someone who'll essentially be the SAME problem, and Romney's THE SAME PROBLEM! Actually, I think he'd be WORSE than what we have now. Investment bankers and venture capitalists are the ones who got us into this recession in the first place.

I also don't think corporations are people, just as I don't think unions are people either. They're ENTITIES! Romney thinks corporations are people and as such, should keep their free speech rights. I don't see any change coming to our government under a Romney administration.

New anti-Romney ad. Way to go Newt! More of the "I like being able to fire people" blathering and GASP! Romney abused his dog in the past, in a sense. Air tight dog kennel. Oooooooooooh, that's rich!

For the Dogs

Oh Gawd, this is getting BETTER!

New verb:

"To Romney" - "To defecate in terror".

The dog story is more detailed than I thought. Gross.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-08/m ... romney-dog

This may be Romney's downfall if even FOX is sounding off against him.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/ ... president/

I'm not a romney fan by any means. But how is this particularly worse than driving with your dog in the back of the truck? Which is dangerous to the dog, but certainly considered acceptable by a large percentage of society.

woodchip wrote:You sure you're not talking about Obama and GM? How many jobs and dealership employee's did Obama sadistically cut just so he could give the UAW pig bosses stolen stock shares? .

You keep harping on GM as if they didn't accomplish a major good for the American economy. Why? In what way did the deal negatively impact you? Seriously, the net effect of the whole GM controlled bankruptcy was:

1. Saved a massive number, roughly 2 million, jobs of autoworkers, parts plant workers, supporting businesses from restaurants
and bars to any retail business that had a lot of autoworkers as customers.

2. By preventing a massive spike to be added to high recession unemployment, it is likely that a full-on Depression was avoided.

3. Earned back taxpayer money after the IPO, and further added to ongoing tax revenue by retaining the jobs.

bondholders got most, if not all, principle back in the final deal(counting interest received prior to bankruptcy), and the US keeps
one more business that makes stuff for sale. BTW, industrial output is on the rise, despite world economic woes, under Obama,
and(wait to see this become a point of discussion in the coming election) so is domestic oil production, despite the Gulf problems.
So, despite some bad bets(ie Solydra and a couple others) in an attempt to recapture the Solar panel market after China took it over(with, ta-da! Government subsidies), the record isn't really all that bad, given what Obama walked into 3 years ago.

Kilarin wrote:I'm not a romney fan by any means. But how is this particularly worse than driving with your dog in the back of the truck? Which is dangerous to the dog, but certainly considered acceptable by a large percentage of society.

I guess it depends on whether the dog was terrified by the ride or not. Obviously, the dog was so scared that his bowels let go in fear. So if that's the case, where's Romney's compassion for his dog, especially after having to clean up the aftermath? Or doesn't he know that animals, and humans, will void their bowels when in fearful situations? Where's his judgement? Didn't he have a clue his dog was in distress? If he did, why put him back up there and drive for many more hours? I've seen dogs in the back of trucks, and they certainly look like they're enjoying things, not pooping in terror. The location of the car ride obviously makes a difference to dogs.

tunnelcat wrote:Obviously, the dog was so scared that his bowels let go in fear.

Actually, It's possible that the dog just got sick, not that it was terrified.

I would never travel with an animal this way. But I'm not certain this proves Romney is a heartless beast.

Kilarin wrote:Actually, It's possible that the dog just got sick, not that it was terrified.

I would never travel with an animal this way. But I'm not certain this proves Romney is a heartless beast.

True. I'd probably get sick up there too. But Mr. Plastic Android Man is still creepy, always with the fake smile, beast or not.

tunnelcat wrote:But Mr. Plastic Android Man is still creepy, always with the fake smile, beast or not.

Can't argue with that.

Yeah, you know you're going to win any competition when your competitors are total idiots...
...unless, that is, the people supporting your competitors are larger in number (and idiots too )

Yeah, I'd like to be able to fire all those idiots there, including Mr. Romney, but then we'd have nothing but intelligent psychopaths running our nanchon. >)

Burlyman wrote:

Yeah, I'd like to be able to fire all those idiots there, including Mr. Romney,

Except Romney is not on our payroll. Lets fire the biggest idiot first.

Yeah, if Romney manages to get elected, I'd like to fire him before he even gets started. We don't need no stinking vulture capitalist running things.

Since Mormons like to stick together, what are the odds that Huntsman will become Romney's running mate?

I'm suspicious of any Christian that maginalizes themselves, shows they don't understand the relationship between the body and the head and where the body actually resides, which is with the head. Heck, I'm just beginning to realize myself.

Is he a compassionate Christian or just a knee jerk moralist? Watch Romney brush off this poor guy who needs medical marijuana to survive. He couldn't even come up with a coherent reply to the guy's question. He just blew him off. What an a$$.

Somebody should bust ole Romney's hip, I'd bet good money his position would change then. He even mentions 'synthetic marijuana'. Probably has friends in the drug industry. They are not against people using substances for pain, they are against not being able to make money off of it. Pricks.

I think people like Romney are really against people enjoying themselves or he'd be a true Capitalist and want to profit off of it. Why else do we have these stupid marijuana laws? I think alcohol is more dangerous anyway, and it's legal.

tunnelcat wrote:I think people like Romney are really against people enjoying themselves or he'd be a true Capitalist and want to profit off of it. Why else do we have these stupid marijuana laws? I think alcohol is more dangerous anyway, and it's legal.

it's all historical, and much about race. Marijuana was a common thing in the black communities in the early 20th century.
Much early jazz makes references to weed, sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle. Now liquor, good liquor is the purview of
the yacht club and the country club. We all found out you can't ban booze and have it work. But, that reefer, if it gets into the hands of Buffy and Thad might make them all crazy. Hence, the ban, not only on marijuana, but essentially all hemp production. Nice bit of legislation: you wipe out a segment of the agricultural sector, get an excuse to jail a massive number of black folk, rake in a ton of fines and other funding to keep this 'problem' under control. Once you got the ball rolling in the first half of the 20th century, it was tough to change things. A generation of suburban schoolkids exposed to bizarre 'informational' materials probably slowed change.
But, change will come, you can see it. As you say, no more harmful that alcohol, probably less so, and we could use the tax revenue, to boot.

I think it goes back a little farther. The story I heard years ago was that white slave owners didn't like all their black slaves high, stoned and glooby smokin' all that mary jane. They were so laid back, it cut productivity.

callmeslick wrote:it's all historical, and much about race. Marijuana was a common thing in the black communities in the early 20th century. Much early jazz makes references to weed, sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle. Now liquor, good liquor is the purview of
the yacht club and the country club. We all found out you can't ban booze and have it work. But, that reefer, if it gets into the hands of Buffy and Thad might make them all crazy. Hence, the ban, not only on marijuana, but essentially all hemp production. Nice bit of legislation: you wipe out a segment of the agricultural sector, get an excuse to jail a massive number of black folk, rake in a ton of fines and other funding to keep this 'problem' under control. Once you got the ball rolling in the first half of the 20th century, it was tough to change things. A generation of suburban schoolkids exposed to bizarre 'informational' materials probably slowed change.
But, change will come, you can see it. As you say, no more harmful that alcohol, probably less so, and we could use the tax revenue, to boot.

True it was about a class of people but it was to get rid of Mexican workers not an attack to jail massive numbers of black people just because it was popular in the jazz scene. The first national law was pass during the great depression.

"By 1930, with the Great Depression and jobs frighteningly scarce, states were eager to get rid of Mexican workers. Since a great number of Mexicans grew and smoked weed, states pressured the United States government to make marijuana illegal so they could arrest and deport migrant workers. Eventually the states got their way, and in 1937 the first federal law against marijuana was passed. No scientific evidence was put forth; "reefer madness" style propaganda was all that was needed to convince the courts and public."

http://cannabisnews.com/news/23/thread23858.shtml

Edit: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hem ... 000/11.htm