Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Romney appraisal Options · View
oldrascal
Posted: Saturday, September 29, 2012 9:10:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 44
Location: Right here, United States
I'm curious to see what the responses to this are.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7405692n&tag=api

I don't know how to delete the ad at the front, sorry
Guest
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 1:37:17 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,624
What kind of answers are you looking for? That Mitt's a good guy? That he helps other people when the cameras aren't looking? Even though there was a picture of him doing that? That he's wealthy?
I know a lot of wealthy, nice guys. I just wouldn't want them for the POTUS.
Gayle's question as to why people don't like or want a wealthy person to be president, is interesting. I think part of the answer to that is the question, how did he get his wealth? Earn it? Inherit it? If he earned it, did he do it honestly with hard work, sacrifices and long hours? Or did he step on a lot of people on his way to the top or to stay at the top? Also, sometimes when people get a lot of money or have had a lot of money for a long time, they forget what it's like to NOT have it. How sometimes, people have to feed themselves on 10 dollars a day. When they tip the guy in the men's room 10 bucks for handing them a paper towel.
LadyX
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:02:10 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
I don't think he's a terrible human being, and didn't think he was prior to seeing this author advocate that position.

As an aside, it's not a good sign when five weeks prior to a national election, there's a necessary campaign narrative that says: "this candidate is a good person who does not, in fact, hate and dismiss you personally."
Buz
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 6:14:18 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,769
Location: Atlanta, United States
I am not crazy at all about Romney but would choose him over Obama if they were the only 2 on the ballot. Most likely I will vote Libertarian for president or write-in Ron Paul.

Piquet
Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2012 11:22:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/12/2009
Posts: 339
Location: Adelaide, Australia
As far as the rest of the world is concerned and I can only speak for us Aussies, the US elections are a beauty contest. We tend to stick to the same party and the same prime minister (president) for about ten or so years. We like Obama. What's Mit short for anyway; mitten?


http://www.lushstories.com/stories/quickie-sex/claudia-incarnatapart-vii.aspx
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 7:43:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Piquet wrote:
What's Mit short for anyway; mitten?


One half of a pair of mittens. You probably don't wear mittens in Oz.

Actually it's Mitt and it's his middle name. His first name is Willard.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Frank
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:06:10 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/16/2011
Posts: 9,266
Location: Pleasure dome, United Kingdom
The guy lacks basic common sense! violent1

Mitt Romney expressed understandable concern following the dramatic emergency landing of his wife Ann's plane due to a fire on board - before offering a surprising solution to the problem.
The Republican presidential candidate told a fundraiser in Beverly Hills at the weekend that the fundamental design of airplanes was flawed for dealing with such emergencies.
Romney said: 'When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no - and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. 'I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous.'
d'oh! Lfunny

Surprised he didn't suggest pee on the fire!

According to aviation experts, opening a plane window would have flooded the cabin with oxygen, fueled the fire and caused a loss of cabin pressure that could have ripped apart the fuselage.

Applause thumbright


________________________________________________________________

Experience is not what happens to you; it's what you do with what happens to you.
Aldous Huxley

groucho
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 10:12:03 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/29/2009
Posts: 232
Location: Nebraska, United States
okay - here's the thing about old willard "mitt" romney. if the romney that ran for governor of massachusetts was running for president i would truly be intrigued. BUT, as was the case with bob dole and john mccain once this perverted version of the republican party gets their meathooks onto really good, decent men they turn them into raving, flip-flopping, far-right, ultra-conservative gas-bags!

the question is why? i believe that the answer is because the two party system has failed in the u.s.a. there was a time when both parties had a broad base that covered the full spectrum of ideals and beliefs. the dems had ultra-liberals to moderates and the reps had ultra-conservatives to moderates within the parties and the bases were much broader than they appear to be now. the narrow bases drive the nominating process to a certain extent in both parties and in the greater sense in the republican party. just look at the cast of characters that have thrown their hats into the ring the past two presidential republican primaries - the sheer nmumber of bat-shit crazies who actually thought they could make the grade is stunning! unless the more moderate elements in both parties regain control the two party system will continue to fail with the more radical extremes have too much sway.

as for mitt (willard) being a good person...maybe he is but that is not what will make for a good president. we have had obscenely rich presidential candidate and presidents before. frd was filthy rich, came from welath, born with an entire set of sterling silverware in his mouth...but he could and did relate to the common people - his fireside chats, his ability to sit down, look into the camera or face the radio mic and come across to every man, woman and child in the u.s.a. as a real, caring person who actually was commited to helping everyone get through the great depression and the horrificness of yet another world war were unmatched.

SO....could will(mitt)ard romney do this? could he ever really connect with the broad spectrum of people in the country - rich to destitue, old to young, male, female, gay, straight, and across the amazing spectrum of ethnic diversity that is the u.s.a.?

as for me, i honestly do not think so. my vote will be for barrack and joe. (and i don't believe they have done a perfect job over the past four years - they will do a far better job that mi(willard)tt and paul.)

g



"Women should be obscene and not heard."
Groucho Marx
oldrascal
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 1:45:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 44
Location: Right here, United States
I have to disagree , Dan, on a few things. FDR was able to communicate, that's what allowed him to be reelected so many times. But what has that to do with running the country? History has shown us that he extended the depression far longer than it should have. And so has Obama. We have had many wealthy prez's. Geo Washington was the richest and he did a pretty good job. I don't think we can go with a good talker but poor executive.
Ruthie
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:42:18 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,348
Location: United States
oldrascal wrote:
I have to disagree , Dan, on a few things. FDR was able to communicate, that's what allowed him to be reelected so many times. But what has that to do with running the country? History has shown us that he extended the depression far longer than it should have. And so has Obama. We have had many wealthy prez's. Geo Washington was the richest and he did a pretty good job. I don't think we can go with a good talker but poor executive.


The idea that FDR prolonged the depression comes mostly from one book, The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes. The right wing jumped on the ideas of this book to discredit FDR and his policies, but the way in which Shlaes measured the economy during the FDR years was flawed. She used the Dow to measure growth, while ignoring gross national product and other measures. The GDP grew an average of 9% under FDR, a statistic which Shlaes ignores.

There was a temporary downturn in the later months of 1937 and the early part of 1938, but as Paul Krugman noted, during that time FDR was persuaded to balance the budget and cut spending, which sent the economy back downward. Unemployment decreased during both his first terms except for that period. Republican revisionism won't change the facts about how things were during the Great Depression, what worked and what didn't.

What Roosevelt actually did was save capitalism. Whether that was a good thing or not is a different discussion.

None of which has anything to do with whether Mitt Romney gets extra points for being a good guy. My opinion is no, he doesn't. Whether he helped some individuals or not is not an indication of what kind of president he'd make. His bumbling campaign style and the fact that he has warped whatever ideals he ever had to please the right wing nut cases of the far right to get the Republican nomination is much more indicative of his potential in leading the free world. He has promised to carry on the failed economic policies that got us into the current recession in the first place. He wants to let personal bigotry and prejudice overrule civil liberties and equality.

It doesn't matter how many of his fellow Mormon's he's helped with their yard work, or what good deeds he's done, or what charities he's given to. Enabling haters overrides that.
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 8:59:15 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Enabling haters overrides that.


If that's your criteria, there has never been a President who wouldn't be excluded. The current President does way more demonizing than any I remember.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 10:22:46 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,348
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


If that's your criteria, there has never been a President who wouldn't be excluded. The current President does way more demonizing than any I remember.


How about providing some evidence for that.
groucho
Posted: Monday, October 01, 2012 10:27:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/29/2009
Posts: 232
Location: Nebraska, United States
hey kids!
coops - good work! nothing like having a broadbase of ideas and research on which to base opinions on.

oldrascal - i still don't agree with you...but i would love to sit downand have a beer with you. in fact, i tell you what...first one is on me! and we should talk about lots more than politics...religion, sex, and the best third baseman who ever played the game are musts too!

oneball - your opinion on how obama is the great demonizer is very interesting and one that i would like to hear more on - like, only, not demanding at all! the reason i find it interesting is that i reckon that obama has been the most demonized prez ever - birth place/certificate, monkey dolls and pics from 2008 campaign, and all the rumors = he's a secret muslim, he's the anti-christ, he is going to take away our gun rights, he is a socialist, etc.

again, in my opinion My 2 cents, had the gop won in 2008 and if they win in 2012 i do not expect their economic policies to take us out of the economic situation - rather it will only make it worse. further more their policies might even place our country in a state of financial apartheid whereby the moneied few overlord the vast numbers of the poor.

obama-biden 2012! hello1

g



"Women should be obscene and not heard."
Groucho Marx
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 8:17:23 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
How about providing some evidence for that.


Ah, come on. The guy can barely speak a word without demonizing the wealthy or corporations. That's what sells to you and that's the entirety of his message. Not even Carter was that much of a one-trick pony.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 2:47:02 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,348
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


Ah, come on. The guy can barely speak a word without demonizing the wealthy or corporations. That's what sells to you and that's the entirety of his message. Not even Carter was that much of a one-trick pony.


You make statements all the time with no evidence to back them up. You just give out the tea bagger line. If asked for proof, you can never provide it, just mumble more of your brainwashed bullshit. President Obama doesn't demonize corporations. He is a corporatist. He is not even a liberal. I realize that you have no knowledge of history or economics, or anything that you don't see on Fox news or hear on right wing radio, but you could at least try. I'm beginning to think you're a troll. I'm not feeding trolls today.
groucho
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 9:42:46 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/29/2009
Posts: 232
Location: Nebraska, United States
yep, 1ball, gotta side with coops here. IF, and that is a big if, obama does as you say, then why did he behave as he did with general motors and not as old mittard? IF obama demonizes the wealthy and corperations he would have let them go down in flames as ROMNEY said he would have done (but then, in all fairness, the mittster was just angling for another coup for blaine!) IF obama hates the wealthy then why have many of the very wealthiest individuals done well under the obama admin...even better than they did under dubbya? my poinion only here but 'tis yourself, 1ball, that is way too enamored with the message of the right.

g



"Women should be obscene and not heard."
Groucho Marx
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 9:56:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
groucho wrote:
oneball - your opinion on how obama is the great demonizer is very interesting and one that i would like to hear more on - like, only, not demanding at all! the reason i find it interesting is that i reckon that obama has been the most demonized prez ever - birth place/certificate, monkey dolls and pics from 2008 campaign, and all the rumors = he's a secret muslim, he's the anti-christ, he is going to take away our gun rights, he is a socialist, etc.


So you're saying he has an excuse to waste time and cause economic damage by demonizing Wall Street, and wealthy people and corporations? He's selling snake-oil to y'all. Everybody who understands how the economy works quit listening to him before his inauguration. The only thing anybody really knows about what he believes is that he believes his best chance for reelection is to keep spewing snake-oil to the gullible people that fell for him the first time. The fact that the most popular brands of snake-oil that he sells are class warfare and wealth envy speaks volumes about his opinion of your economic savvy.



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 10:02:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
You make statements all the time with no evidence to back them up.


Do you even listen to the words in his speeches? or do you just sit there with google-eyes, hard nipples and wet panties watching his lips move? When he isn't blaming Bush or uncooperative Republicans, he's blaming Wall Street and bankers and lecturing about how we need more sacrifice from those who fly in corporate jets. Wake up and smell the sugar-coated horse shit he's feeding you.



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 10:05:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


So you're saying he has an excuse to waste time and cause economic damage by demonizing Wall Street, and wealthy people and corporations? He's selling snake-oil to y'all. Everybody who understands how the economy works quit listening to him before his inauguration. The only thing anybody really knows about what he believes is that he believes his best chance for reelection is to keep spewing snake-oil to the gullible people that fell for him the first time. The fact that the most popular brands of snake-oil that he sells are class warfare and wealth envy speaks volumes about his opinion of your economic savvy.



So... can you provide any quotes where he's "demonized" any corporation? Wall Street (I suppose you're mostly referring to those corporations and banks that have offices there, maybe you mean the NYSE - I can't be sure) has made out like a bandit under this administration as well as under the last administration. I fail to see how they've been demonized.

1ball
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 10:18:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
groucho wrote:
IF, and that is a big if, obama does as you say, then why did he behave as he did with general motors?


Were you a shareholder of GM? If you were, you would know that he grabbed the company and gave it to his cronies. Shareholders got squeezed out. He basically stole it by fiat and kept it afloat by adding to the US debt. He's still keeping it afloat by giving incentives to buyers (adding more debt). It should have been allowed to go bankrupt. Then the owners of it would have gotten something from the settlement.

Quote:
IF obama demonizes the wealthy and corperations he would have let them go down in flames


He gave most of it to the UAW. He rescued them, not the corporation. Most of the shareholders of GM were not wealthy. Shares were held in IRA and 401K mutual funds. Shares were held by pension funds. Shares were held by charitable trusts. He chose who to bless and who to steal from.

Quote:
IF obama hates the wealthy then why have many of the very wealthiest individuals done well under the obama admin


I didn't say he hates them. He demonizes them to get your votes. You're drinking the KoolAid on the Dem plantation. He's peeing in it.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 10:27:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
So... can you provide any quotes where he's "demonized" any corporation?


Just listen to his fuckin' speeches. Sheesh.

Quote:
Wall Street (I suppose you're mostly referring to those corporations and banks that have offices there, maybe you mean the NYSE - I can't be sure) has made out like a bandit under this administration as well as under the last administration. I fail to see how they've been demonized.


Of course they did well while he berated and vilified them. That's part of the game. He buys your vote by blowing smoke up your ass and in the meantime, they're taking profits and investing only for the short term because they can't trust where the future will take them. That means little hiring, little expansion, mergers/buyouts with layoffs, holding onto cash and waiting for him to leave.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 10:45:33 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Quote:
He gave most of it to the UAW. He rescued them, not the corporation.


Wrong.

Non-"Right Wing Talking Point" Reality is that the bailout deal resulted in a health care trust for the UAW, not the union itself, owning stock in Chrysler and GM. This happened because the terms of the settlement called for payment toward health care and other benefits in exchange for lower wages, less vacation, and a scaling-back of job protections. Both sides came to an agreement, and the stock is not owned by the UAW at all, nor does the union have a say in company operations or board votes (which if the claims were true, they would, by virtue of being "gifted" the companies), because the trust is a separate entity for retirees and families. The UAW has no access to that organization and it's funds, and benefited only through negotiation in exchange for cash concessions.

It does however get the trailer-park gun-toter brigade up in arms. So, as rhetoric, it's pretty effective.

WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:27:20 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,288
Location: Cakeland, United States
Much p'wnage in this thread. The dark side seethes, babbles. Collapse imminent.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:40:35 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,514
Location: My Tower, United States
1ball wrote:


That's part of the game. He buys your vote by blowing smoke up your ass


thank god the republicans don't do this... oh... wait... nevermind!

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:00:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Reality is that the bailout deal resulted in a health care trust for the UAW, not the union itself, owning stock in Chrysler and GM. This happened because the terms of the settlement called for payment toward health care and other benefits in exchange for lower wages, less vacation, and a scaling-back of job protections. Both sides came to an agreement, and the stock is not owned by the UAW at all, nor does the union have a say in company operations or board votes (which if the claims were true, they would, by virtue of being "gifted" the companies), because the trust is a separate entity for retirees and families. The UAW has no access to that organization and it's funds, and benefited only through negotiation in exchange for cash concessions.


Of course he couldn't make it obvious that he was giving ownership of the company directly to his UAW cronies. But who does this "health care trust for the UAW" benefit? Not the old shareholders who owned the company. Not the taxpayers of the US. The UAW members. The settlement preserved their health care benefits and their jobs at the expense of shareholders, who mostly got nada. Had the process not been violated by his dictatorial intervention, shareholders would have gotten something and the UAW would have gotten much less, as it should be in a country where rule of law, limits on government and protection of individual rights are in place.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:11:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
sprite wrote:
thank god the republicans don't do this... oh... wait... nevermind!


Of course the Republicans also do this. The claim was that Mitt enables haters. Both sides enable haters. Nobody hates like the extremes of both right and left. Speeches by both sides typically talk about the bright future that can be had by setting things right. What the current Snake-oil Salesman-in-Chief is selling is hatred for people an economy needs, capital investors. He's selling this hate to people who don't understand what they're buying. but they love the sound of it. The unpopular minority is the scapegoat. At different times in history, it's been Jews, foreigners, communists, etc. With this charismatic charlatan, wealth envy is the appeal and class warfare is the method sold but not delivered, which keeps it available for reelection promises.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:29:49 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:


Of course he couldn't make it obvious that he was giving ownership of the company directly to his UAW cronies.


That's because the "UAW cronies" don't have ownership of the company, unless you live in conspiracy-land. The trust, again, as part of the settlement, benefits the retirees, as it should. The union itself gave up concessions on several fronts. This matters none to you right-wingers though, because you're categorically anti-Union and feel the President should've just let the process ride out on its own, 1M-plus jobs be damned. We'll never know what would have happened; count me among those who are thankful for this.
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 12:57:34 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
That's because the "UAW cronies" don't have ownership of the company, unless you live in conspiracy-land. The trust, again, as part of the settlement, benefits the retirees, as it should.


And the future retirees whose jobs were preserved so that they could become retirees. Agreed? The company is now out of the control of its rightful owners and is a cash cow for past and current and future UAW members. Agreed?

Quote:
The union itself gave up concessions on several fronts.


The union was lucky that they had enough political clout to cause this violation of shareholder rights. They could have been the ones who ended up with diddly squat. The country as a whole suffers now from the lack of trust that the federal government will respect individual investor rights.

Quote:
This matters none to you right-wingers though, because you're categorically anti-Union and feel the President should've just let the process ride out on its own, 1M-plus jobs be damned. We'll never know what would have happened; count me among those who are thankful for this.


I'm not categorically anti-union. I believe we shouldn't have union-shop states, because that violates the right to freedom of association for workers and employers. We're paying the price for that mistake. I do think the process should have been allowed to work out according to the law. I'm not saying the concept of a bailout was bad, just that the execution was. It was crony socialism.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:08:04 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:

The company is now out of the control of its rightful owners and is a cash cow for past and current and future UAW members. Agreed?


The Voluntary Employee Benefits Association owns roughly 1/6th of GM. Assuming one chooses to believe in some sort of bleed-it-dry conspiracy from within a retirement trust on behalf of the UAW, a 17% stake is hard to wield ultimate power with.
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:11:19 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
1ball wrote: The company is now out of the control of its rightful owners and is a cash cow for past and current and future UAW members. Agreed?

LadyX wrote:
The Voluntary Employee Benefits Association owns roughly 1/6th of GM. Assuming one chooses to believe in some sort of bleed-it-dry conspiracy from within a retirement trust on behalf of the UAW, a 17% stake is hard to wield ultimate power with.


So that's a yes?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.