• 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!

Ann Romney Never Worked a Day In Her Life.

In all fairness - I would place the initiation of the real hole, as far back as 1913.

Now, ask me why. Or, do the math, and figure out why 1913, is a year that will live in veiled infamy - for two very sinister reasons.

Wilson re-instated income tax? Mexican revolution? King George assassinated?

There several significant things that occurred in 1913, which of them do you consider infamous?
 
For many people, $2,000 for a wedding dress is completely beyond their means. The Michelle Obama dress we're talking about was a sundress. A sundress for $2,000? Good gravy.

You are absolutely right, but since my wife watches "Say Yes to the Dress" a lot, I have learned that there are several people out there that spend $2000 or more for a wedding dress. But I totally agree, $2000 for a sundress (or any dress) is very expensive.
 
I know your response wasn't to me - but earlier when I was commenting on the issue (this morning) I wasn't giving a thought to her being a Stay at Home Mother - it was the 'after the kids are grown' part.

Now Ann: after her kids were grown she didn't go get a job - or go back to college - she became heavily involved with numerous organizations that mainly centered around helping kids and families in a variety of ways. . . having volunteered my time: I know any such effort makes someone super busy.

It sounds like she did that and then helped take care of their grandkids when they were born - enabling their mothers to stress less while they pursued careers (those that did, anyway).

Having learned that (which I didn't know before) - I have respect for her, she sounds like she's been after one thing or another her entire life - and even while being ill with MS for the last 13 years she's still volunteering her time and efforts.

That - overall - is my issue with people: whether they'er paid or not - I don't like it when people just rely on their spouse and don't make any effort to do anything with theirself in their entire life. . . this issue of mine comes from people I know who are just like that (my mother in law) - never been employed, never went to college, only spent her time and family fortune being a recluse drug addict, moved in with her mother when her husband left her in 69 and stayed there.

Is Ann Romney like that? Hell no - but I'll admit that I honestly thought she was a recluse :shrug: I'm imagining that a lot of people think the same.

Well, perhaps this debate shed some light on the issue of "rich" stay at home mom's if nothing else.
 
Well, perhaps this debate shed some light on the issue of "rich" stay at home mom's if nothing else.

Well - I think Ann's an exception to the rule of the 'spoiled rich trophy wife'
 
Well - I think Ann's an exception to the rule of the 'spoiled rich trophy wife'

Well, I don't think she fits that category at all. And to be honest, If Governor Romney was worth a quarter billion dollars and didn't hire a few people to help his wife (suffering from Cancer and MS) raise 5 kids, he'd definitely be an asshole I wouldn't vote for.

Besides, if he were a democrat...he'd be banging some aide on the side while his wife was dieing of cancer.....
 
Last edited:
SO you don't see a difference? I didn't think so even though we have seen you howl many times your hatred of those who inherit wealth versus those who earned every penny of it


You don't mind Michelle getting essentially a bribe. Obama's stupid ghost written book sells only because he holds a public office

Ghost written! :lol:

Any more retarded conspiracy theories you'd like to share?
 
I see and understand all that you wrote perfectly, but judging the Washington administration as an executive administration strictly on the question of slavery from the perspective we now hold, is severely weakening.


You still don't get it, do you?

The fact that it was the 18th century, and not yesterday morning, that Washington and Jefferson, owned Human Beings - or the fact that in the 18th century "everybody was doing it," is neither justifiable, or even remotely dignify-able as an answer and/or rebuttal to the point that was made. And, the fact that you still can't properly frame your reply, is not shocking to me - not at all. In fact, dialoging on this level with you, was very much predictable, for there are many highly confused Americans out there right now, who think just like you. Which means, they too lack the capacity to understand WHY the immorality exhibited by both Washington and Jefferson, was so egregious.

Jefferson, had the real opportunity to free the Slaves, but instead, he decided to go back and do renovations on his home. How's that for total fail.

The fact that you revel in their immorality is also not surprising, because this country revels in its immorality, all day long - while thinking of itself as being "civilized" and "erudite." Nothing could be further from the truth.

You are no better than your best moral judgements. And, THAT my dear friend, is where you simply drop the ball.
 
Last edited:
sure beats using insider connections like Michelle Obama did.

You lefties ooze envy towards those who actually followed the rules while kissing the asses of those who use political office to gain wealth

What laws did Michelle break? :popcorn2:

No doubt it's far more commendable to run a buyout firm that, at its core, is based on phony bids that force out better paying competitors -- only to have the phony bid replaced with a low-ball offer once all of the other bidders are gone. Romney is a slimeball.
 
You still don't get it, do you?

The fact that it was the 18th century, and not yesterday morning, that Washington and Jefferson, owned Human Beings - or the fact that in the 18th century "everybody was doing it," is neither justifiable, or even remotely dignify-able as an answer and/or rebuttal to the point that was made. And, the fact that you still can't properly frame your reply, is not shocking to me - not at all. In fact, dialoging on this level with you, was very much predictable, for there are many highly confused Americans out there right now, who think just like you. Which means, they too lack the capacity to understand WHY the immorality exhibited by both Washington and Jefferson, was so egregious.

Jefferson, had the real opportunity to free the Slaves, but instead, he decided to go back and do renovations on his home. How's that for total fail.

The fact that you revel in their immorality is also not surprising, because this country revels in its immorality, all day long - while thinking of itself as being "civilized" and "erudite." Nothing could be further from the truth.

You are no better than your best moral judgements. And, THAT my dear friend, is where you simply drop the ball.

Actually, I think you are referring to the 19th century. Also, there were a lot of things going on world-wide then (not just in the US) that we'd deem barbaric now. And for the record, it was generally in the 19th century that slavery started becoming illegal in many countries (again, not just the US).

edit: ah, on re-reading your post, I see that you were referring to Washington specifically...not just slavery.
 
Last edited:
What laws did Michelle break? :popcorn2:

No doubt it's far more commendable to run a buyout firm that, at its core, is based on phony bids that force out better paying competitors -- only to have the phony bid replaced with a low-ball offer once all of the other bidders are gone. Romney is a slimeball.

Proof?? Perhaps just low blood sugar. Eat a candy bar and get to us.
 
You still don't get it, do you?

The fact that it was the 18th century, and not yesterday morning, that Washington and Jefferson, owned Human Beings - or the fact that in the 18th century "everybody was doing it," is neither justifiable, or even remotely dignify-able as an answer and/or rebuttal to the point that was made. And, the fact that still can't properly frame your reply, is not shocking to me - not at all. In fact, dialoging on this level with you, was very much predictable, for there are many highly confused Americans out there right now, who think just like you. Which means, they too lack the capacity to understand WHY the immorality exhibited by both Washington and Jefferson, was so egregious.

The fact that you revel in their immorality is also not surprising, because this country revels in its immorality, all day long - while thinking of itself as being "civilized" and "erudite." Nothing could be further from the truth.

You are no better than your best moral judgements. And, THAT my dear friend, is where you simply drop the ball.

I'm not a presentist. I have to avoid that each and every day, otherwise I risk distorting the past to fit my morals, the morals of current society. Your preconceived notions about my lack of insight, my lack of empathy, my lack of being confronted with historical realities I find distasteful is simply stunning. Do you have any idea how many people, how many influential people, including Presidents of the United States who were eugenicists? We are talking about a group of people who quite literally, were attempting to create a master race, advocating the sterilization, marginalization, persecution, and deaths of people like me, people that I knew, grew up with, and aided, simply because we are going to exist in society. Do I not find that troubling each time I come across those documents? You would be out of your damn mind if you thought I didn't. Yet, I have to be careful, more than careful, about assessing such matters.

Quite simply, to pull this back once more, the thing about our Presidents of the United States, from start to finish, were apart of the elite, advocated harmful and dangerous things, and made mistakes accordingly. Yet, they were which they were. How were they assessed. The Presidents who came from wealth and prominence were quite well accepted enough to be nominated, let alone elected. We cannot blankly assume that elite status renders one a bad President if we are also to presume that a great many other men who came before us were worthy of the job and did a decent to wonderful job. If we have so fundamentally changed over the past 50 years, so be it. I stand on the other side of the fence, but at least people would be able to declare without too much difficulty, that indeed, elite status is a reason for dismissal.
 
Last edited:
Wilson re-instated income tax? Mexican revolution? King George assassinated?

There several significant things that occurred in 1913, which of them do you consider infamous?


Funny, how you left out the biggest one of all. The one that allowed the 2008, economic implosion to become a reality.

More homework for you, I guess. :2wave:

Geepers, no wonder this country is going to hell in a hand basket. We don't know our own history.

Unreal. Just.....un.......real.
 
I am wealthy, but my definition of wealth is probably different than most...
My definition is based not on what I have, but what I don't need.
I occasionally associate with very wealthy people, mostly at church functions....
they act just like any other people, they don't have live in help, and they aren't above taking their turns when it comes to cleaning the church building. Do they have it easier than the rest of us? yes, they do, but very few of them got there overnight, or without considerable effort.
truth be known, there are a lot of rich people living among us in secret. Why secrecy? so they won't have to deal with their neighbors jealousy. I dealt with that when all we had was a bit more than our neighbors....there were some who called us lucky. I told them we paid for our luck, the hard way.

Ever read the book, "the millionaire next door"?
From what I have read on line, Ann Romney's parents had a nanny in the household, probably back when Ann first had problems with her MS....but I haven't read that Mitt and Ann have ever had live-in help of any kind.....
If they did, it will come out, not that it is anybody's business but their own.
 
Last edited:
Funny, how you left out the biggest one of all. The one that allowed the 2008, economic implosion to become a reality.

More homework for you, I guess. :2wave:

Geepers, no wonder this country is going to hell in a hand basket. We don't know our own history.

Unreal. Just.....un.......real.

Why don't we quit playing games and you just tell us your lunatic theory?
 
Last edited:
Republicans, have been telling this lie, ever since Obama lowered his hand during the Presidential Inauguration.

Can you point to a specific policy where 'government' isn't the answer? Where it has been recommended to reduce the size in any agency?

Can you point to where he has spent less money in his 3 years than Bush did in 8?

The hole that you speak of, was created under Republican leadership.

The whole this country is in, is due to both sides, and their out of control spending for decades. Centrist is what your lean says? Yeah, right.... :roll:
 
I am not rich and my wife stayed home for years taking care of our kids. It was a life choice…family over a fulltime career at something. She has worked/works at a job part-time off and on, and she did a LOT of work at home too raising our kids. To ever say a stay at home Mom hasn’t worked a day in her life seems to be a common liberal point of view of stay at home Moms as they look down their noses at them.
 
I just don't want people getting the sense that his business was golden or nice - it was down and dirty, just like most large corporations are.

That's being charitable. The truth is that what Romney did was immoral and unethical, though apparently not illegal.

Seemingly alone among private-equity firms, Romney’s Bain Capital was a master at bait-and-switching Wall Street bankers to get its hands on the companies that provided the raw material for its financial alchemy. Other private-equity firms I worked with extensively over the years — Forstmann Little, KKR, TPG and the Carlyle Group, among them — never dared attempt the audacious strategy that Bain partners employed with great alacrity and little shame. Call it the real Bain way.

Here’s how it worked. Private-equity firms are always eager to find companies to buy, allowing them to invest chunks of the billions of dollars entrusted to them and from which they earn hundreds of millions in fees. One ready source of these businesses is Wall Street bankers hired to sell companies through private auctions. The good news is that when a banker puts together a detailed selling memorandum about a company, chances are very high that company will be sold; the bad news is that these private auctions tend to be very competitive, and the winning bidder, by definition, is most often the one willing to pay the most. By paying the highest price, you win the company, but you also may reduce the returns you can generate for your investors.

I never negotiated directly with Romney; he was too high-level for any interaction with me. Rather, I dealt often with other Bain senior partners, who were very much in his mold. In my experience, Bain Capital did all that it could to game the system by consistently offering the highest prices during the early rounds of bidding — only to try to low-ball the price after it had weeded out competitors.

By bidding high early, Bain would win a coveted spot in the later rounds of the auction, when greater information about the company for sale is shared and the number of competitors is reduced. (A banker and his client generally allow only the potential buyers with the highest bids into the later rounds; after all, you can’t have an endless procession of Savile Row-suited businessmen traipsing through a manufacturing plant if you want to keep a possible sale under wraps.)

For buyers, the goal in these auctions is to be one of the few selected to inspect the company’s facilities and books on-site, in order to make a final and supposedly binding bid. Generally, the prospective buyer with the highest bid after the on-site due-diligence visit is selected by the client — in consultation with his or her banker — to negotiate a final agreement to buy the company.

This is the moment when Bain Capital would become especially crafty. In my experience — which I heard echoed often by my colleagues around Wall Street — Bain would seek to be the highest bidder at the end of the formal process in order to be the firm selected to negotiate alone with the seller, putting itself in the exclusive, competition-free zone. Then, when all other competitors had been essentially vanquished and the purchase contract was under negotiation, Bain would suddenly begin finding all sorts of warts, bruises and faults with the company being sold. Soon enough, that near-final Bain bid — the one that got the firm into its exclusive negotiating position — would begin to fall, often significantly.

Of course, some haggling over price is typical in any sale, and not everything represented by sellers and their bankers is found to be accurate under close examination. But Bain Capital took the art of negotiation over price into the scientific realm. Once the competitive dynamics had shifted definitively in its favor, the firm’s genuine views about what it was willing to pay — often far lower than first indicated — would be revealed.

At such a late date, of course, the seller is more than a little pregnant with the buyer. Attempting to pivot and find a new buyer — which knew it had not been selected in the first place, but was now being called back — would be devastating to the carefully constructed process designed to generate the highest price. Once Bain’s real thoughts about the price were revealed, the seller either had to suck it up and accept the lower price, or negotiate with a new buyer, but with far less leverage.

Needless to say, this does not make for a very happy client (or a happy banker). By the end of my days on Wall Street in 2004, I found the real Bain way so counterproductive that I no longer included Bain Capital on my buyer’s lists of private-equity firms for a company I was selling.


When Romney ran Bain Capital, his word was not his bond - The Washington Post
 
Last edited:
Why don't we quit playing games and you just tell us your lunatic theory?


I have a feeling after all the build up, it's just going to be more left wing blabber.
 
That's being charitable. The truth is that what Romney did was immoral and unethical, though apparently not illegal.

There are a lot of business practices one might paint as unethical from any given point of view. Did he do anything illegal, that you know of?
 
I'm not a presentist. I have to avoid that each and every day, otherwise I risk distorting the past to fit my morals, the morals of current society.


No, no, no, no, no, no. No you don't label me that way. How the heck can anyone distort the reality that if you were a Slave owner, that you were some of the most disgusting type of human being on the face of the planet? You are going to have to illiterate a massive amount of moral structure within your replies, before I buy into that misnomer.

Hey, look - you are not the only one out there! I'm not tossing that out as an excuse for you, I'm just laying out the facts. There are tons of Americans out there, who think that the American Institution of Slavery, has no relevant impact on today's American society and its attached social traits. You are not alone in this delusion and this utter distortion of reality. But, I can promise you that it is real. I grew-up with it and the American Institution of Slavery, was very relevant in my family, as it is to this very day. The fact that I have to explain something like this to one who writes with the degree of fluency that you write with, is also not very surprising.

I've had in-person, sit down discussions with University Professors, who did not understand what the heck I was talking about - and these guys are out there "inspiring young minds" for goodness sakes. Or, was that polluting young minds? Never mind, that's a different thread.


Your preconceived notions about my lack of insight, my lack of empathy, my lack of being confronted with historical realities I find distasteful is simply stunning. Do you have any idea how many people, how many influential people, including Presidents of the United States who were eugenicists? We are talking about a group of people who quite literally, were attempting to create a master race, advocating the sterilization, marginalization, persecution, and deaths of people like me, people that I knew, grew up with, and aided, simply because we existed.

I can read between the lines, very well. Are you saying that you are Jewish, or Arab/Muslim?

All I've done was read your posts. And, from reading your posts, you don't seem like someone who understands what the Trans-Atlantic Salve Trade meant to the United States of America, and its current social fabric today. That's the point I'm making and it should be quite clear, that such is the only relevant point I'm making. The nexus between where we are as a nation today in terms of race relations, has a direct corollary, to how people like Jefferson and Washington, handle their moral responsibility to extinguish Slavery from the face of our great country - and they failed to do so.

I'm saying that in a time that called upon great men of courage, to do the great things, THEY FAILED. THAT is what I'm saying. They utterly FAILED.


Do I not find that troubling each time I come across those documents? You would be out of your damn mind if you thought I didn't. Yet, I have to be careful, more than careful, about assessing such matters.

I'm not privy to such documents, so I can't comment on them. But, if those documents are anything like the documents that I have read on issues such as Northwoods, Project T/P Ajax and the like, then I fully understand the concerns you might have about such "leaders," especially when they are given such enormous power - such as that given to one who commands the United States Military.

So, let's see now: Are we talking Iran, circa 1953/1954? Or, something more recent?
 
Last edited:
John F Kennedy was exceptionally wealthy for his time, and he was elected president and his wealth didn't come into play in the democrats mind with how well he could run a country. Why is it an issue now with a republican? John Kerry was wealthy from what I hear, and it wasn't an issue.

Why do liberals demonize successful people? I mean, if you ran a business and you needed a CEO who could make money, would you hire someone who obviously hasn't shown any ability to create wealth beyond a menial hourly job, or someone who has money from investing, making businesses successful etc?

It doesn't even matter how someone became wealthy as long as it was through legal means. I mean, if a billionaire walks up to me and writes me a check for 10 million dollars, am I suddenly a bad person?

Why is wealth bad, liberals?
 
Last edited:
Noooo, I'm not.

After reading some subsequent posts...I can see that. I also see that you are familiar with Reynolds wrap. Good day, Sir.
 
John F Kennedy was exceptionally wealthy for his time, and he was elected president and his wealth didn't come into play in the democrats mind with how well he could run a country. Why is it an issue now with a republican? John Kerry was wealthy from what I hear, and it wasn't an issue.

Why do liberals demonize successful people? I mean, if you ran a business and you needed a CEO who could make money, would you hire someone who obviously hasn't shown any ability to create wealth beyond a menial hourly job, or someone who has money from investing, making businesses successful etc?

Why is wealth bad, liberals?

Actually, JFK wasn't all that successful in his own right, his father was. So, he was especially privileged. Kerry simply married into his money. Edwards sued people for his. But hey, Gore invented the internet!
 
After reading some subsequent posts...I can see that. I also see that you are familiar with Reynolds wrap. Good day, Sir.

From the weaker minds, will always come the weakest results. When you develop a solitary clue about what it is you pretend to know about, post the subject matter and entertain me.
 
Back
Top Bottom