• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

At U.N., Obama to Warn Iran on Nuclear Program

Are you any good at math? 10 out of 67 deals went bankrupt....that's 14.9%. So, in 85% of cases, Bain successfully managed to turn the business around, while only 15% of their investments went south. Pretty good odds if you ask me.

Give any investor an 85% success rate, and see if they don't jump at the opportunity. Once again, the statistics turn around and shoot you in the foot.....

It seems you didn't read the article. It is the way he conducted his business that is at issue. It isn't a measure of his ability to gain personal wealth.
 
So how do you think Romney will deal with it when he sees he can make more money dealing with China and Iran on a personal level? You really think he would pass up that opportunity? I doubt it. His record shows he will make money anyway possible. That's why he sent jobs to China, because he made more money in doing so. I don't see him as a patriotic sort. He is out to get what he can by any means possible.

Yeah another false statement, Romney proved you wrong by never taking a paycheck as Governor and for running the Olympics.
 
This isnt gonna change anything.
/thread
 
It seems you didn't read the article. It is the way he conducted his business that is at issue. It isn't a measure of his ability to gain personal wealth.

Frankly, I would take Romney's "way of conducting business" over the tactics of the left. Tactics like those of George Soros. Do a little research into how HE made his billions as a hedge fund manager, and currency trader. You've heard of Soros surely. He's the guy who single handedly keeps liberal radio afloat, as well as all these little fringe people and their little anarchist groups.

Yes, but it's natural for you to attack a man who utilizes the capitalistic system to make money. Which sometimes means knowing how to make a profit off of someone else's loss. George Soros has perfected the art. Obama's pal Warren Buffett. Do a little back ground check on how he made his billions as another hedge fund manager. What does Buffett do today? He buys companies. Sometimes he wins, sometimes a company goes bankrupt. I don't hear you castigating Obama's pal Warren. Why? Because Warren is the biggest hypocrite of them all. He goes out, AFTER he's made his billions, and declares that the rich should pay higher taxes. Pretty easy to say when you've already amassed billions of your own through the capitalistic system.

You wanna question Romney's manner of making money? Be my guest. Obama doesn't know how to make money, that's one of his many problems. So his tactics don't matter anyway, because he doesn't even have the fundamental understanding of how to make money in the first place! He doesn't understand our system. Either that, or he hates our system so much, that he works from within to change it. THAT'S what I think he does. He views the American, free market system, as biased and unfair. No secret there, he's said so himself many many times.

If your argument is that Romney profitted more when a company went bankrupt than when a company turned around, you are completely clueless. You are still trying to hold him to an IMPOSSIBLE standard. No investment firm in the world has a 100% success rate. But you chastise Romney when only 15% of Bain's investments went south.

How trivial are you that you ignore an 85% success rate, and focus on a 15% failure rate? You think an NFL coach would like an 85% Touchdown rate on the offenses' possessions? You think a basketball coach would take an 85% free throw percentage from each of his players? You think hedge fund managers would take an 85% success rate on each dollar invested? You think a professional poker player is going to bet or fold when he knows his hand has an 85% chance of winning?

But you go ahead and quibble over numbers. It does nothing but marginalize you in a forum where people understand success, they understand statistics, and they understand that liberal politics and ideology trump EVERYTHING, even results. I would prefer you simply tell the truth. You wan't the rich to pay more because you espouse the principles of Karl Marx. You are about social engineering, not doing what is actually "fair". You are about wealth redistribution. You are about punishing one class of Americans to give handouts to other classes, and not even for the purpose of helping them, but for the purpose of buying their votes.

You, like other progressive liberals, view the poor as a vehicle to political power. They are like Obama described them, a unified voting bloc. You guys exploit poverty for votes. Then you turn around and lie through your teeth and accuse Conservatives of wanting poor people to die and crap like that.

I'de rather you just tell the truth about what you truly believe. Because your policies are the antithesis of "smart" in the context of what's good economic policy.
 
He has more investments than one single company in China. He has invested in many companies in China, and then oursourced American jobs out to those companies. I don't trust a man that will do anything to increase his personal wealth regardless of who he hurts in the process.

You no have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that Romney would change his foreign policy in order to suit his personal investments. I'll stick to criticizing Romney on his record and his policies, not made up fantasy nonsense.
 
Frankly, I would take Romney's "way of conducting business" over the tactics of the left. Tactics like those of George Soros. Do a little research into how HE made his billions as a hedge fund manager, and currency trader. You've heard of Soros surely. He's the guy who single handedly keeps liberal radio afloat, as well as all these little fringe people and their little anarchist groups.

Yes, but it's natural for you to attack a man who utilizes the capitalistic system to make money. Which sometimes means knowing how to make a profit off of someone else's loss. George Soros has perfected the art. Obama's pal Warren Buffett. Do a little back ground check on how he made his billions as another hedge fund manager. What does Buffett do today? He buys companies. Sometimes he wins, sometimes a company goes bankrupt. I don't hear you castigating Obama's pal Warren. Why? Because Warren is the biggest hypocrite of them all. He goes out, AFTER he's made his billions, and declares that the rich should pay higher taxes. Pretty easy to say when you've already amassed billions of your own through the capitalistic system.

You wanna question Romney's manner of making money? Be my guest. Obama doesn't know how to make money, that's one of his many problems. So his tactics don't matter anyway, because he doesn't even have the fundamental understanding of how to make money in the first place! He doesn't understand our system. Either that, or he hates our system so much, that he works from within to change it. THAT'S what I think he does. He views the American, free market system, as biased and unfair. No secret there, he's said so himself many many times.

If your argument is that Romney profitted more when a company went bankrupt than when a company turned around, you are completely clueless. You are still trying to hold him to an IMPOSSIBLE standard. No investment firm in the world has a 100% success rate. But you chastise Romney when only 15% of Bain's investments went south.

How trivial are you that you ignore an 85% success rate, and focus on a 15% failure rate? You think an NFL coach would like an 85% Touchdown rate on the offenses' possessions? You think a basketball coach would take an 85% free throw percentage from each of his players? You think hedge fund managers would take an 85% success rate on each dollar invested? You think a professional poker player is going to bet or fold when he knows his hand has an 85% chance of winning?

But you go ahead and quibble over numbers. It does nothing but marginalize you in a forum where people understand success, they understand statistics, and they understand that liberal politics and ideology trump EVERYTHING, even results. I would prefer you simply tell the truth. You wan't the rich to pay more because you espouse the principles of Karl Marx. You are about social engineering, not doing what is actually "fair". You are about wealth redistribution. You are about punishing one class of Americans to give handouts to other classes, and not even for the purpose of helping them, but for the purpose of buying their votes.

You, like other progressive liberals, view the poor as a vehicle to political power. They are like Obama described them, a unified voting bloc. You guys exploit poverty for votes. Then you turn around and lie through your teeth and accuse Conservatives of wanting poor people to die and crap like that.

I'de rather you just tell the truth about what you truly believe. Because your policies are the antithesis of "smart" in the context of what's good economic policy.

George Sorose isn't running for President. I probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. I didn't attack Romney, I simply pointed out his character. I don't know if you like Romney or just vote along party lines. I'm not a party line sorta person.
By the way, I'm just progressive.
 
You no have no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that Romney would change his foreign policy in order to suit his personal investments. I'll stick to criticizing Romney on his record and his policies, not made up fantasy nonsense.

I think his character speaks loud and clear. He is greedy. The greedy will always go for the money over patriatism.
 
Whoever wins needs to focus on attacking the power elite in Iran, not the nuclear facilities. The mainstream public in Iran is pretty pragmatic and like western things and a more secular government would more likely work with us to avoid an attack on those facilities. Dust them with a cloud of radioactive blowback and you might find their attitude toward the west chill in not the good way.
 
I think his character speaks loud and clear. He is greedy. The greedy will always go for the money over patriatism.

If that were true, Romney would have simply stayed in the private sector. Multi-billion dollar companies in the financial industry pay a hell of a lot better than the presidency. Your really need to focus on arguments based on facts and evidence rather than personal biases.
 
If that were true, Romney would have simply stayed in the private sector. Multi-billion dollar companies in the financial industry pay a hell of a lot better than the presidency. Your really need to focus on arguments based on facts and evidence rather than personal biases.

You don't see the amount of power the president has. Greedy people also love power. I still don't trust that Romney has the people's best interest at heart.
 
THis article may help you understand Romny's business style.

Romney
"What’s less clear is how his skills are relevant to the job of overseeing the U.S. economy, strengthening competitiveness and looking out for the welfare of the general public, especially the middle class.

Thanks to leverage, 10 of roughly 67 major deals by Bain Capital during Romney’s watch produced about 70 percent of the firm’s profits. Four of those 10 deals, as well as others, later wound up in bankruptcy. It’s worth examining some of them to understand Romney’s investment style at Bain Capital."

So why hasn't Obama bombed Iran yet?

If Bush was still president, he would have already dropped enough bombs to turn Iran into a sheet of glass.
 
So why hasn't Obama bombed Iran yet?

If Bush was still president, he would have already dropped enough bombs to turn Iran into a sheet of glass.

lol. All I have to say is, thank the Godesses that Bush isn't POTUS.
 
He would stand to make much more money in 1 term by dealing with Iran and China than he would get in benefits from being POTUS. I don't put anything past someone that has demonstrated the amount of greed he has shown.

Well of course you don't. Your mind is already made up and you will reach for anything to demonize the guy you oppose. It's sloppy lab work. Investigating anything with a predisposed outcome on your part will skew your results. You are making assumptions about how he will handle his money, spinning it toward your perspective and ending up with a worst case scenario. This is why it's difficult for anyone to take you seriously. You come across as a partisan hack. On the other hand Obama could literally wipe his butt with the Constitution and you would spin it to be Romney's fault because Bain once worked with a paper manufacturer and years later it led to a Charmin shortage at the White House. It's posters like you who deteriorate honest discussion on these forums.
 
Romney won't stand up to China or Iran. He has been too financially invested in China and Iran.

any proof for the this nonsense?
 
lol. All I have to say is, thank the Godesses that Bush isn't POTUS.

I know.. total turmoil , financial ruin and a wars we cant win are sooooo much more awesome..
plus taking our freedoms under the BS Obamacare is just sooooooooo amazing..
 
George Sorose isn't running for President. I probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. I didn't attack Romney, I simply pointed out his character. I don't know if you like Romney or just vote along party lines. I'm not a party line sorta person.
By the way, I'm just progressive.

Soros is your President..
 
This isn't about dealing with the Middle East. It is about dealing with Iran gaining nuclear capabilities. Romney claims he will be tougher on Iran and China than Obama has been. Clearly, if Romney is getting in bed with Iran to make money, how will he be able to be strong on them when it comes to preventing Iran from getting Nuclear Weapons?

any proof.. anything?..
 
any proof for the this nonsense?

Romney talks tough on Iran and China but he invested money in both - National economic policy | Examiner.com
"As it turns out, the one enabling Iran is Mitt Romney. Despite his rhetoric, we find that Romney’s money is not where his mouth is. Romney has investments in Chinese companies including a huge Chinese oil company, CNOOC Ltd. That company is working closely with Iran to develop their natural gas fields and liquid natural gas.

Iran finances its nuclear program and its military from its oil and gas revenues."
 
Romney talks tough on Iran and China but he invested money in both - National economic policy | Examiner.com
"As it turns out, the one enabling Iran is Mitt Romney. Despite his rhetoric, we find that Romney’s money is not where his mouth is. Romney has investments in Chinese companies including a huge Chinese oil company, CNOOC Ltd. That company is working closely with Iran to develop their natural gas fields and liquid natural gas.




Iran finances its nuclear program and its military from its oil and gas revenues."


Russia is builing Irans nukes.. iran is not.
 
Last edited:
Romney talks tough on Iran and China but he invested money in both - National economic policy | Examiner.com
"As it turns out, the one enabling Iran is Mitt Romney. Despite his rhetoric, we find that Romney’s money is not where his mouth is. Romney has investments in Chinese companies including a huge Chinese oil company, CNOOC Ltd. That company is working closely with Iran to develop their natural gas fields and liquid natural gas.


Iran finances its nuclear program and its military from its oil and gas revenues."


Most egregiously, while Clinton was preaching draconian gun control for law-abiding American citizens, he was entertaining Chinese gun runners, like Wang Jun of the Red Chinese firm Polytechnologies, with White House coffees and a Democratic National Committee (DNC) fund raising event. Mr. Wang himself (now indicted) manned COSCO's ship the Empress Phoenix which was intercepted by U.S. Customs bringing to the port of Oakland, California 2,000 automatic weapons destined for Los Angeles gangs! Undaunted, in May 1998, Clinton approved the launching of a satellite by Lockheed Martin and a Red Chinese firm in a joint venture with Polytechnologies.

But not all of the characters in this nefarious story are communist Chinese, but American capitalists who placed corporate profits ahead of America's national interest, and so the businesses they headed donated millions of dollars to the DNC to help the Democrats regain Congress in the 1996 and 1998 elections. In return, the Clinton-Gore team signed waivers allowing these companies to transfer our most sensitive satellite (i.e., missile launching) technology to Red China, obliterating the safety margin and technological edge we previously had on our sworn and potential enemies. (China then transferred sensitive U.S. technology to Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.) As a result, according to American intelligence and the Cox Report, China now has 20 reliable ICBMs targeted at U.S. cities and although not à la par with the U.S., China poses a serious threat to our national security. In fact, during the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis in which China attempted to intimidate Taiwan and the U.S. sent its 7th Fleet to discourage a communist invasion, a leading Chinese general threatened to nuke Los Angeles adding, with great assurance, that the U.S. would not endanger Los Angeles to defend Taiwan.

Year of the Rat --- How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash


Let me guess. you LOVE CLINTON.. you voted for him Id bet
 
Most egregiously, while Clinton was preaching draconian gun control for law-abiding American citizens, he was entertaining Chinese gun runners, like Wang Jun of the Red Chinese firm Polytechnologies, with White House coffees and a Democratic National Committee (DNC) fund raising event. Mr. Wang himself (now indicted) manned COSCO's ship the Empress Phoenix which was intercepted by U.S. Customs bringing to the port of Oakland, California 2,000 automatic weapons destined for Los Angeles gangs! Undaunted, in May 1998, Clinton approved the launching of a satellite by Lockheed Martin and a Red Chinese firm in a joint venture with Polytechnologies.

But not all of the characters in this nefarious story are communist Chinese, but American capitalists who placed corporate profits ahead of America's national interest, and so the businesses they headed donated millions of dollars to the DNC to help the Democrats regain Congress in the 1996 and 1998 elections. In return, the Clinton-Gore team signed waivers allowing these companies to transfer our most sensitive satellite (i.e., missile launching) technology to Red China, obliterating the safety margin and technological edge we previously had on our sworn and potential enemies. (China then transferred sensitive U.S. technology to Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.) As a result, according to American intelligence and the Cox Report, China now has 20 reliable ICBMs targeted at U.S. cities and although not à la par with the U.S., China poses a serious threat to our national security. In fact, during the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis in which China attempted to intimidate Taiwan and the U.S. sent its 7th Fleet to discourage a communist invasion, a leading Chinese general threatened to nuke Los Angeles adding, with great assurance, that the U.S. would not endanger Los Angeles to defend Taiwan.

Year of the Rat --- How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash


Let me guess. you LOVE CLINTON.. you voted for him Id bet

You would be wrong. I didn't vote for Clinton either time. Now, can you tell me what this has to do with Romney being in bed with China and Iran? Is this one of those attempts to redirect the attention of Romney's investments with something that has nothing to do with the topic?
 
You would be wrong. I didn't vote for Clinton either time. Now, can you tell me what this has to do with Romney being in bed with China and Iran? Is this one of those attempts to redirect the attention of Romney's investments with something that has nothing to do with the topic?

first off you article is nonsense from a blog.. second my point is a real story like Cosco was not even cared about by the Dem minions..
 
Back
Top Bottom