Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You could have saved lots of writing if you would have just made it simple. Mitt Romney is so successful, he is going to whip the communist obama's butt, and it scares you to death. See, much quicker than your rant...
But his current strategy of stonewalling doesn’t pass the smell test.
Romney now is either the first sole shareholder, chairman, CEO and president of a company in history to claim that he had nothing whatsoever to do with managing that company or he is responsible for the worst practices of Bain.
After all, no one -- not me, not the Obama campaign, not the press -- believes that Romney committed a felony when he signed those SEC filings.
But by denying so forcefully during his five networks appearances on Friday that it was ridiculous and beneath the dignity of the presidency to raise the issue – and by not providing minutes of Bain Board of Directors meetings during the period in question to prove that he wasn’t involved in any decisions made during that time -- Romney has left open to belief exactly what the Obama campaign has been claiming: that Romney was indeed, as those filings suggest, the sole shareholder, CEO, chairman and president of the company through 2002, and is therefore responsible for the layoffs, lost jobs, raided pensions, bankruptcies and outsourcing of jobs overseas that he has denied he had any part in or responsibility for.
Trap? With the big kahuna hat comes responsibility. You cannot have authority without responsibility. Because when you do, you aren't worthy of authority and you've rendered a company to nothing more than a crime syndicate. A ponzi scheme of a different flavor. So is Bain a legit company or not? Because if you're going to brag about your legit company, shouldn't it be legit?
I guess FOX characterized this as a trap to protect their own crime syndicate interests. The entire right wing are wannabe dead beat dads. Sickening.
I don't have a problem with Mitt being a bit tricky, but I do have a problem with him being president. And it's for no other reason than I just don't think he can relate to the average person.
My reasons have much less to do with his crappy bedside manner + obliviousness to poverty and heavily weighted by the fact that poverty is fueled by his lifestyle. Romney IS the problem.
I see zero evidence he has any clue how to make an HONEST dollar, which is much different than the millions he's fleeced from real businesses. I can't recall a time when I've ever agreed with the ole Newt, but vulture capitalist was spot on. I'll add that the only reason Newt saw his crime is because he too is engaged in it. If I'm doing 'business' with you without any ethical restraint whatsoever, lure you into my store and have employees jacking the radio out of your car, I'm thinking that version of business isn't business at all. How about you? Is capitalism all about making sure all others labors are devalued more than your own so you can 'win'? Maybe that's not capitalism? Maybe that's feudalism??? Maybe that crap doesn't belong in America? Call me kooky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Some would argue that the Kennedy's were rich and never had this perspective, and that the Roosevelts were also rich and never had this sort of insight either, and I guess that would be true. But they at least had the empathy that was required to do the job.
They had the empathy because they earned it in the trenches. They weren't obliged to live it out day in day out having been born with money, but neither did their parents allow them to live the trust fund lifestyle of the rich and famous complacent about social responsibilities. With great wealth comes great responsibility, and they took it seriously as a lifelong plan. Not a campaign promise that melts in the snow. The envy coming from republicans about the Kennedy's is gross. If they had made their fortune unethically, I'd hear them out. But that's never the criticism coming out of their mouths, and the relentless attacks of their personal lives for 60 odd years 3 generations long betrays them. Vindictive petty nonsense that only reinforces my belief they're incapable of holding any office without abusing the authority vested in them. Mamma's boys aping their daddy's shoes don't impress me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Obama's far from perfect. Personally, I think Hillary would have made a better president. I think Obama's naive and clearly has issues communicating and forming strategic relationships that serve him well inside the Beltway.
I think Hillary would have made a better president but I'm not seeing America ready for a high principled strong female in office without having hysterical fits and Obama was the superior strategist. I think it actually worked out that what America most needed did get met in Obama.
His leadership style is not muscular, however, his stealth & subtlety is very much an asset for dealing with snakes in the grass in foreign policy. His sensitivity to cultural differences is also high, making him an excellent negotiator, if only the individuals at the table were genuinely negotiating in good faith. Frankly, I think the real problem people (populist sentiments) are having with him is the Rambo president ideal in their minds. They're addicted to drama and expect manhood live up to Charles Bronson posturing.
As for the beltway relationships... when every alliance or agreement becomes a maze of trojan horses, when choices become keep your left arm or your right-- DC is dysfunctional. It's all a non choice. No human being sent there is able to work without being chewed up by power grabs. People are still in denial about what caused the global crisis, and part of that cause is all around him in that oval office. Not employees. The system itself. Government isn't the problem. Government hijacked by lobbyists is the problem. Republicans are defending a corrupted system and Obama/ Dems are trying to reform it. Republicans need ousting and Dems need to work in earnest. One of the reforms-- abusing elected office-- needs redress, along with many other reforms. We're in trouble deep, and so too is the globe. Republicans are going very far out of their way to declare mutiny and punch holes in the hull for personal gain. American can not politely accept traitors in elected office. I'd like it very much if Obama & Dems got muscular about that.
But his current strategy of stonewalling doesn’t pass the smell test.
Romney now is either the first sole shareholder, chairman, CEO and president of a company in history to claim that he had nothing whatsoever to do with managing that company or he is responsible for the worst practices of Bain.
After all, no one -- not me, not the Obama campaign, not the press -- believes that Romney committed a felony when he signed those SEC filings.
But by denying so forcefully during his five networks appearances on Friday that it was ridiculous and beneath the dignity of the presidency to raise the issue – and by not providing minutes of Bain Board of Directors meetings during the period in question to prove that he wasn’t involved in any decisions made during that time -- Romney has left open to belief exactly what the Obama campaign has been claiming: that Romney was indeed, as those filings suggest, the sole shareholder, CEO, chairman and president of the company through 2002, and is therefore responsible for the layoffs, lost jobs, raided pensions, bankruptcies and outsourcing of jobs overseas that he has denied he had any part in or responsibility for.
check your sources, FOX didn't say that, a contributor and there are thousands of them, said it: look at the contributors background...look at who has worked for? What would you expect him to say?
check your sources, FOX didn't say that, a contributor and there are thousands of them, said it: look at the contributors background...look at who has worked for? What would you expect him to say?
What if you checked sources and found out all of the above were paid BY THE SAME PEOPLE?
What do I expect you to say? Anything that denies responsibility just like Mitt.
My reasons have much less to do with his crappy bedside manner + obliviousness to poverty and heavily weighted by the fact that poverty is fueled by his lifestyle. Romney IS the problem.
I see zero evidence he has any clue how to make an HONEST dollar, which is much different than the millions he's fleeced from real businesses. I can't recall a time when I've ever agreed with the ole Newt, but vulture capitalist was spot on. I'll add that the only reason Newt saw his crime is because he too is engaged in it. If I'm doing 'business' with you without any ethical restraint whatsoever, lure you into my store and have employees jacking the radio out of your car, I'm thinking that version of business isn't business at all. How about you? Is capitalism all about making sure all others labors are devalued more than your own so you can 'win'? Maybe that's not capitalism? Maybe that's feudalism??? Maybe that crap doesn't belong in America? Call me kooky.
They had the empathy because they earned it in the trenches. They weren't obliged to live it out day in day out having been born with money, but neither did their parents allow them to live the trust fund lifestyle of the rich and famous complacent about social responsibilities. With great wealth comes great responsibility, and they took it seriously as a lifelong plan. Not a campaign promise that melts in the snow. The envy coming from republicans about the Kennedy's is gross. If they had made their fortune unethically, I'd hear them out. But that's never the criticism coming out of their mouths, and the relentless attacks of their personal lives for 60 odd years 3 generations long betrays them. Vindictive petty nonsense that only reinforces my belief they're incapable of holding any office without abusing the authority vested in them. Mamma's boys aping their daddy's shoes don't impress me.
I think Hillary would have made a better president but I'm not seeing America ready for a high principled strong female in office without having hysterical fits and Obama was the superior strategist. I think it actually worked out that what America most needed did get met in Obama.
His leadership style is not muscular, however, his stealth & subtlety is very much an asset for dealing with snakes in the grass in foreign policy. His sensitivity to cultural differences is also high, making him an excellent negotiator, if only the individuals at the table were genuinely negotiating in good faith. Frankly, I think the real problem people (populist sentiments) are having with him is the Rambo president ideal in their minds. They're addicted to drama and expect manhood live up to Charles Bronson posturing.
As for the beltway relationships... when every alliance or agreement becomes a maze of trojan horses, when choices become keep your left arm or your right-- DC is dysfunctional. It's all a non choice. No human being sent there is able to work without being chewed up by power grabs. People are still in denial about what caused the global crisis, and part of that cause is all around him in that oval office. Not employees. The system itself. Government isn't the problem. Government hijacked by lobbyists is the problem. Republicans are defending a corrupted system and Obama/ Dems are trying to reform it. Republicans need ousting and Dems need to work in earnest. One of the reforms-- abusing elected office-- needs redress, along with many other reforms. We're in trouble deep, and so too is the globe. Republicans are going very far out of their way to declare mutiny and punch holes in the hull for personal gain. American can not politely accept traitors in elected office. I'd like it very much if Obama & Dems got muscular about that.
What if you checked sources and found out all of the above were paid BY THE SAME PEOPLE?
What do I expect you to say? Anything that denies responsibility just like Mitt.
I have no clue what you are talking about: My point and only point was, saying it was a FOX report. It was a report by a contributor, not by FOX per say...What does this have to do with my accepting responsibiity or anyone else for that matter?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
