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.
It was a LIE. Romney and his AD claimed that Obama Administration was making it easier for Welfare recipients not to work. That is NOT what the Memo outlines. It was NOT a sneaky tactic when in fact Romney himself wrote a letter in 2005 in favor of States having the flexibility to mandate Welfare for their state.
Where is this imaginary real intent? Point it out. Its apparent that you HAVEN'T read the memo which is pretty clear.
LOL.......your trust is affected in direct proportion to your Obama idolization.
I am POSITIVE that is his intent and equally POSITIVE that history will prove me right. Too many coincidences for it to mean anything else.
I'm so happy for you that you are blind to how this was accomplished by skirting the intent of the law...it must make living in Obamaland where rule by edict without regard to the law is commonplace....even laws the HE sponsored!
Whenever you answer how the guy responsible for buying it almost a decade before it goes under is somehow responsible for what happened nearly 10 years later.
Because a major part of the company's debt was taken on Bain's insistence and for Bain's benefit. Now, feel free to answer. Was Bain's decision to grab 36 million borrowed dollars from GST's coffers to the company's benefit?
LOL do you realize how ridiculously silly it is to make all kinds of accusations and assumptions against some person you're talking to on the internet and you don't even know their real name? Obviously not! Seriously, guy, take a deep breath and go get some fresh air! It must make you feel better about yourself or something to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is some Obama-worshipping mouth-breather, huh?
This is not an assumption.
You are dishonest.
You are defending what you know to be a lie.
You can deflect from this, but you are fine with dirty lies that help Obama based on your own words.
I am speculating that you are not naturally dishonest, perhaps you are. What makes you think it is okay for horrific lies to be told in favor of Obama? My guess is, that you are too emotionally tied up with Obama. What reason do you have to be so dishonest?
There's inertia in this sort of thing. Bain loaded the company with debt to reclaim their cost in taking it over and grabbed a few hundred percent on top of that, presumably for their trouble. The company staggered on, but ultimately couldn't service the debt and folded.
No wonder libs keep blaming Bush.
Bain bought companies in trouble. They didn't need to load the company with debt.
Businesses come and go all the time. The reality is that this woman died YEARS after her husband lost his job (not shortly, like the lie in the ad). She had insurance. She chose to not go and see a doctor, whatever the reason.
It's called personal responsibility. I know it's a foreign concept to liberals, who need mommy-government to tell them how to act and think.
You can deflect from this, but you are fine with dirty lies that help Obama based on your own words.
I am speculating that you are not naturally dishonest, perhaps you are. What makes you think it is okay for horrific lies to be told in favor of Obama? My guess is, that you are too emotionally tied up with Obama. What reason do you have to be so dishonest?
Can you quote where I lied specifically please? Because I didn't. You are calling me a liar for no reason. I don't know what that does to your "credibility."
Because a major part of the company's debt was taken on Bain's insistence and for Bain's benefit. Now, feel free to answer. Was Bain's decision to grab 36 million borrowed dollars from GST's coffers to the company's benefit?
When you show a credible source for that information, I might.
I will have to decide if you actually answered my question because even if that is true (yet to be ascertained) nearly a decade went by with the company not failing before an Obama bundler closed it down.
Had Romney been in charge, a lot of other things may have happened. We KNOW Romney has a pretty good track record of turning deficits into surpluses.
LOL.......your trust is affected in direct proportion to your Obama idolization.
I am POSITIVE that is his intent and equally POSITIVE that history will prove me right. Too many coincidences for it to mean anything else.
I'm so happy for you that you are blind to how this was accomplished by skirting the intent of the law...it must make living in Obamaland where rule by edict without regard to the law is commonplace....even laws the HE sponsored!
There goes that child like behavior again, you accuse me of insulting you. But when you find it difficult to provide any factual basis for what is NOT in the memo you resort to your own insult. But no biggie, the memo is clear and Romney agreed in 2005. The power will go to the States to structure their own rules and policies to concerning Welfare.
I am POSITIVE that is his intent and equally POSITIVE that history will prove me right. Too many coincidences for it to mean anything else.
You are wrong now, and you will be wrong then. But you're a birther, so what else could I expect?
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.
