• 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.

Romney, you f*&^*(^^ idiot!!

smb said:
I don't think it gives him sole ownership. he does own the policy together with W. I think it is safe to say that everyone wants to forget W. Ergo, Obama owns the auto bailout.
Click to expand...

So it's basically just old fashioned revisionism when it's called "Obama's bailout"?
 
American said:
Okay, this is great news for liberals.....awesome news for liberals.

I'm here to tell you that it was reported that Romney said that what he did at Bain Capital.......was no different than what Obama did for GM. :shock: It's no wonder they want Romney to win the Republican nomination.

Romney likens work at Bain Capital to Obama

WTF!!

Score 1 for the Dems. :doh
Click to expand...

Liberals do not want Romney to win. If you look at the breakdown someone showed in the NH primary breakdown. The vast majority of dems that are for Huntsman.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Some of the tactics used to try to save the companies are the same. However, the big difference is that Bain Capital is in the private sector and used private funds. In contrast, the government is in the public sector and used taxpayer funds. For conservatives, that distinction is significant and it highlights basic differences concerning the role of government.
Click to expand...

Again this is argument he can use to shore up the conservative base.
 
Tucker Case said:
So it's basically just old fashioned revisionism when it's called "Obama's bailout"?
Click to expand...
Effects of the 2008
Not at all, it didn't through under Bush. It went through later under Obama. So technically it is Obama's. It's his all the way baby!!!

Anyway, Romney is still an idiot, but I don't like him anyhow.
 
Romney sucks with analogies. For a polished politician, he sometimes doesnt think. The primary and over-riding difference is of course private sector vs government involvement in primary sector. And when you are trying to present yourself as a representative of the people and one they can feel comfortable and confident in, saying "I like to fire people" is NEVER a good idea because it can ALWAYS be misinterpreted and misused. The very direct and honest approach would have been that his corporation bought failing businesses...businesses that were about to go under...and turned them into profitable enterprises that ended hiring more people than they did previously. But to compare yourself (and inappropriately) to the guy you are running AGAINST...well...not a great maneuver.
 
smb said:
That sword cuts both ways and that is the point (at least I think) of the OP. Romney has now equated what he did at Bain with the kind of actions Obama did with GM. If Romney helped save and/or create jobs by doing that then so did Obama.
Click to expand...
Except that Romney didn't use tax dollars to buy up company shares. Once again, leave it to a "very liberal" poster to massage the masses with Marxist oils.
 
Last edited:
My favorite theme in this primary is this whole thing where conservatives speculate about which candidate liberals are hoping will win and then consider that an argument for whoever is opposing that candidate to win... First because it's just a confession that the person saying that has no actual values of their own, they just try to do the opposite of whatever liberals want. Second because frankly Democrats don't care who you guys pick for your presidential candidate. Even now, during the primary when the challenger typically is polling at their highest point, Obama beats all the options, so all you're really picking is who will get to represent you in the debates. Personally, after all the hysteria you guys generated about health care, I would get some emotional satisfaction out of seeing you guys pick a candidate that supports exactly the same policy. I'd perceive that as sort of an acknowledgement that you went a bit around the bend on that one and maybe even something of an apology to the American people for what you did. But, on the flip side, if you nominated a real nutter that would be kind of satisfying too since it would be fun to revel in the chaotic mess that the GOP has become... Honestly I can't really choose which of those outcomes I would prefer, but neither really has any serious implications. They're just appealing for different reasons on a kind of theatrical level.
 
smb said:
That sword cuts both ways and that is the point (at least I think) of the OP. Romney has now equated what he did at Bain with the kind of actions Obama did with GM. If Romney helped save and/or create jobs by doing that then so did Obama. It also blunts the so-called flank attack you stated against Solyndra. There are many, many similar cases with Bain Capital buying up or investing in companies that then went belly up. If this wasn't Romney's fault but the companies managers fault, then exact same is true for Obama.

The argument you make against using private versus public funds is not a winning argument either. Those that believe in government intervention who might otherwise vote for Romney will be completely turned off by this argument. It only shores up the conservative base that is already against that sort of intervention. The base generally does not need to be reminded to vote against Obama. This type of comparison is a lose, lose for the Romney campaign. If Romney is smart he will begin to distance himself from these remarks. This will inevitabley play into the say/do anything to get elected argument against Romney but I think we can all agree that that boat sailed a long, long time ago.
Click to expand...

You're missing the entire point. Bain, a private firm financed by private investors. If they lose, Bain and the investors lose. If they win, the opposite.

Now lets flip this to the federal government. Its a risk the government shouldn't be making with taxpayer dollars at all. And lets just add how f-ing unethical it is as the government has the power through regulation to make the competitive playing field more beneficial to the companies (and in the case of this administration...their financial campaign contributors) that they're backing. Perfect example with GM. A large part of their "soaring profits" has been the federal government buying GM vehicles in mass. I've personally witnessed. Used to be a pretty solid balance of Ford and GM vehicles. ALL the new ones have been GM.

The argument is simple, the federal government has absolutely no business picking winners and losers in the private sector.
 
AdamT said:
Liberals don't think he's a good candidate. We think -- as the polls show quite clearly -- that he's the only candidate who stands a chance of beating Obama.
Click to expand...

He is also the only possible nominee that might propel Ron Paul to go third party and help Obama win election. So Romney is something of a double edged sword.
 
The Republican party will get the blame when Romney screws up. No thanks.

If Romney is the Republican nominee, I'll stay home or vote third party in November.
 
johnny_rebson said:
The Republican party will get the blame when Romney screws up. No thanks.

If Romney is the Republican nominee, I'll stay home or vote third party in November.
Click to expand...

Obama thanks you again
 
Hey Turtle,

It's not too late to vote for a real conservative in the primaries.
 
Tucker Case said:
Well the bailout was designed so that the next administration managed things. I don't see how that gives Obama ownership of the bailout, or at least sole ownership of it.
Click to expand...

The reason he owns it is that right wingers have been bashing him for it for years now, saying that it makes him a commie and all that crap. Now that has blown up in their faces.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Hey Turtle,

It's not too late to vote for a real conservative in the primaries.
Click to expand...

who would that be

the guy who fired his cancer stricken wife on her hospital bed?

The guy from Texas who makes Biden look Smart?
 
pbrauer said:
You're right he is an idiot. He must have gotten this tactic from Chris Wallace who tried this crap on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz last Sunday on FNS.

Romney has absolutely no political sense, he is all business.
Click to expand...
using political and sense in the same sentence?
 
TurtleDude said:
who would that be

the guy who fired his cancer stricken wife on her hospital bed?

The guy from Texas who makes Biden look Smart?
Click to expand...

Sure. Malice and ignorance are certainly both core conservative values.
 
teamosil said:
Sure. Malice and ignorance are certainly both core conservative values.
Click to expand...

jumping to idiotic conclusions based on two examples apparently is a liberal pathology
 
johnny_rebson said:
Hey Turtle,

It's not too late to vote for a real conservative in the primaries.
Click to expand...
Which "real conservative" are you referring to? Mark Levin isn't running for office.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Hey Turtle,

It's not too late to vote for a real conservative in the primaries.
Click to expand...

Which one would that be?

The one that sat a couch all chummy with Nancy Pelosi and his new found love of the Global Warming trend. Of course couldn't stick around since had to get back over to Frannie and Freddie to praise what a solid organization it is. Sounds more like an Ocutard than a GOP candidate right now?

The one that touts his social conservative-ness and asking all of to forget that he never saw an earmark he didn't like as well as voting for the largest increase in Medicare since its inception?

The one that not too long ago was praising Al Gore and actually had a "D" next to his name?

Sh!t, if you apply the level of ideological purity to the rest of the field thats been applied to Romney, all of these guys are liberals. Well, with the exception of Ron Paul.

Ronald Reagan wouldn't past the muster today with some.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Gingrich, Santorum and Perry are conservatives.

Romney is a liberal.
Click to expand...

He's not a liberal, he's just less conservative.

Liberals "want" Romney to win the primary because he's the only candidate that isn't insane. (and has a chance)

See, we don't want a nutcase to win the GOP primary because we don't want even the most remote chance that the nutcase wins.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Gingrich, Santorum and Perry are conservatives.

Romney is a liberal.
Click to expand...
Gingrich thinks with his penis, Santorum is a simpleton following Huckabee's failed path, and Perry went to school in the same state as Bush the Shrub....and learned about as much.
OTOH, Romney reminds me of Eddie Haskell....
 
Sunbelt said:
Except that Romney didn't use tax dollars to buy up company shares. Once again, leave it to a "very liberal" poster to massage the masses with Marxist oils.
Click to expand...

No, he used bank money that he didn't pay back. Consider the Bain acquisition of KB Toys. In 2000, Bain buys KB for $305M (great for the sellers) using $18M of Bain money and borrowing the remaining proceeds on KB assets (kind of like buying a new house and using the asset value of that house as collateral and only using your own funds for a small portion of the purchase). Bain then proceeded to dividend itself $85M over the next two years (so now it is up by $67M, which is $85M less the $18M outlay, great for Bain). Then it bankrupted the company in 2004, leaving bank to collect on whatever security it might have, but screwing employees and unsecured creditors (the largest of which are mall owners).....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KB_Toys

Bain didn't rob taxpayers, Bain robbed the bank, employees and mall owners. I am wondering, do we measure the thief by his victim?

PS - based on the cap structure of most private equity firms, most of this income would have capital gains (15%) to Mitt.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom