Ouze wrote: So this is just like, a non-scientific, informal Dakka Gallup type deal?
Depends how many people respond. Would be nice to get a flavour for dakka's over-all opinions.
I expect a - Dems beat the Republicans, overwealmingly in the rest of the world, less so in the USA, and b- a disproportionate amount of "other". Since, you know. This is the internet
Ouze wrote:Yeah, my feeling is Democrats will have a totally outsized number here just because the core demo for Dakka is young and technical.
Don't forget that a significant chunk of Dakka comes from countries that already have functional health care & educational systems and real equal rights, and would never vote against those systems. I have no doubt that the Democrats will probably take a 3 to 1 ratio in this poll.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, my feeling is Democrats will have a totally outsized number here just because the core demo for Dakka is young and technical.
True, but wargamers tend to the right wing to some extent. Not enough to counter the youth thing, but if you were to go to say, some grognard wargaming club full of people who've been playing the same game of The Longest Day since the 1980s it'd probably be really right wing. Also kind of angry, because The Longest Day is both really long, stupidly technical, and incredibly not fun.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, my feeling is Democrats will have a totally outsized number here just because the core demo for Dakka is young and technical.
True, but wargamers tend to the right wing to some extent. Not enough to counter the youth thing, but if you were to go to say, some grognard wargaming club full of people who've been playing the same game of The Longest Day since the 1980s it'd probably be really right wing. Also kind of angry, because The Longest Day is both really long, stupidly technical, and incredibly not fun.
Older wargamers from what I've seen.
Granted, whenever politics comes up at my FLGS, it seems conservatives are in the majority across all age groups. I think as a whole, their just less vocal. Silent majority, ya know?
Ouze wrote: Yeah, my feeling is Democrats will have a totally outsized number here just because the core demo for Dakka is young and technical.
True, but wargamers tend to the right wing to some extent. Not enough to counter the youth thing, but if you were to go to say, some grognard wargaming club full of people who've been playing the same game of The Longest Day since the 1980s it'd probably be really right wing. Also kind of angry, because The Longest Day is both really long, stupidly technical, and incredibly not fun.
Older wargamers from what I've seen.
Granted, whenever politics comes up at my FLGS, it seems conservatives are in the majority across all age groups. I think as a whole, their just less vocal. Silent majority, ya know?
Pretty much this.
Personally I don't care who you're voting for, I dislike all politicians equally.
PersonallyI don't think the Dems plan - or lack there of - holds any water. The general stick-your-head-in-the-sand and keep running up the debt on things we would LIKE to have is getting to be alarming.
Now I think the Republican austerity plan is going to be highly unpopular unless they can really communicate.
My prediction is the populace will vote for bread and circuses. All of you non-US citizens get to watch Rome burn. While we continue to hope we have a little change left in our pockets.
DAaddict wrote:PersonallyI don't think the Dems plan - or lack there of - holds any water. The general stick-your-head-in-the-sand and keep running up the debt on things we would LIKE to have is getting to be alarming.
Now I think the Republican austerity plan is going to be highly unpopular unless they can really communicate.
My prediction is the populace will vote for bread and circuses. All of you non-US citizens get to watch Rome burn. While we continue to hope we have a little change left in our pockets.
Don't call it austerity. Austerity does not imply sapping all services and giving the savings to the super-rich.
DAaddict wrote:PersonallyI don't think the Dems plan - or lack there of - holds any water. The general stick-your-head-in-the-sand and keep running up the debt on things we would LIKE to have is getting to be alarming.
Now I think the Republican austerity plan is going to be highly unpopular unless they can really communicate.
My prediction is the populace will vote for bread and circuses. All of you non-US citizens get to watch Rome burn. While we continue to hope we have a little change left in our pockets.
Don't call it austerity. Austerity does not imply sapping all services and giving the savings to the super-rich.
Could you be any more theatrical?
Lets take a look at some numbers, for every 2 dollars that the US Federal Government gained in taxes, it spent 3 (in 2011). The plan is to get that 2 to 3 ration to a 1 to 1 ratio, ie we are spending no more then we're taking in.
Now you imply that by cutting that 3 number down, all the Republican plan is, is to give the money to the "super-rich". Well, outside of pork spending projects how exactly that going to happen? People have been slamming on Romney for only paying a 15% tax rate, but I have to ask, how much of that did he get back? None.
Now I, not super rich, made $27,000 in taxable income last year. With deductions I paid $1,100 in taxes. How much money did I receive after filing taxes? $9000ish.
So, Mitt Romney paid something of the scale of 3 million in taxes last year, without getting any of it back. In the meantime, me being in the 2nd lowest tax bracket, received nearly 9 times back what I paid in taxes. So you are claiming that by cutting certain entitlements that the government is going to START giving money to the super rich? Well, your wrong. If it's anything, their going to just end up taking less money, which is completely and utterly differant from what you said. I'd put my money on this happening. No further tax cuts will be issued. Cuts in place will already stay in place (those cuts that Obama signed in place btw).
djones520 wrote:Now I, not super rich, made $27,000 in taxable income last year. With deductions I paid $1,100 in taxes. How much money did I receive after filing taxes? $9000ish.
djones520 wrote:Now I, not super rich, made $27,000 in taxable income last year. With deductions I paid $1,100 in taxes. How much money did I receive after filing taxes? $9000ish.
djones520 wrote:Now I, not super rich, made $27,000 in taxable income last year. With deductions I paid $1,100 in taxes. How much money did I receive after filing taxes? $9000ish.
How the Hell is that even possible?
If he has any dependants that could easily do it.
American tax system is literally give and take for lower income, despite how much higher income earners could pay a potentially lower percentage amount. Gov't takes over the course of a year, then gives boatloads back at the end; depending on expenses, it could be a lot of dough back.
Ouze wrote: That's an interesting idea. Do people who are into wargaming generally lean more right than the public at large?
In my experience, yeah. I really noticed this when I was two RPGs at the same time - one was a very combat oriented post apocalyptic game, and the other was free form Ars Magic game. The first group had a lot of... well not conservative voters per se, but they were certainly very pro-military, and very anti-poor people. The second group were all over the shop, but ultimately if you asked them whether the problem lies with the rich or the poor, every single one of them would say the rich.
When I went back to wargaming some years later I found it hard not to notice how common people like those in the first group were.
Hang on. A guy responds to a thread that claims Rome is going to burn, and that the people will vote for bread and circuses... and you complain the second guy is being theatrical by saying services will be sapped and savings will go to the super-rich?
As a UK conservative, I haven't got a fething clue who I would vote for in a US election. There is no way on earth that I would vote for the radical christ-fascist, gun-toting psychopaths of the Republican party, so I guess I'd have to hold my nose and vote Obama - give me any credible alternative to that, and I'd snap your hand off, however.
I put Other, because for the first presidential election in a long time, I don't know who I want to vote against.
If I had to pick, I'd say I am very conservative. I believe that the USA is a pretty good country to live in (having lived in several). I believe that those that work for it, will do well in the USA. Conversely, I believe that a person that has not done so well has a large part of the blame for that. I believe that the "Government" should minimize it's involvement in everything, only getting involved when there is no other logical choice (military, inter-state highways, etc.) I believe that less taxes means more money for all, even the rich. Allowing very rich companies to keep more of their money means more jobs and more money for us.
If forced to pick a party, I pick Republican. Lesser of two evils, really though.
However, in this election, I don't know who I would vote for. (Which horrifies some of my friends). I guess that on election day, if the weather is nice, and I don't have anything else to do, I'll swing by the polling place and vote. Of course, something important might be on the ballot, so that might encourage me to go vote even if the weather is bad. The Presidential election, this year, is not that important though.
Romney is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and voting for him sends the wrong message to the Republican Party. Not voting at all might send the right message, if enough of us do it.
Obama is incompetent and has not really accomplished anything, which is perfect for me, since I want my government to not do anything anyway.
So, if I had to choose, I'd vote Obama. Yep, that's what I would do if I had to choose. However, I don't have to choose. My current plan is to give the electronic voting machine a fit, and NOT VOTE for president. I'll vote for all the important things, but leave the piddly stuff, like president, blank.
Easy E wrote: I always got the feeling that wargamers tend to be more conservative than liberal.
I'm interested to hear anecdotes and see the polling data either way.
There are 5 guys in my gaming group, we're all friends. 3 of us swing to the left, 2 to the right. It's no coincidence that the ones on the right also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with immigrants and prisoners. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Albatross wrote: As a UK conservative, I haven't got a fething clue who I would vote for in a US election. There is no way on earth that I would vote for the radical christ-fascist, gun-toting psychopaths of the Republican party, so I guess I'd have to hold my nose and vote Obama - give me any credible alternative to that, and I'd snap your hand off, however.
Same, I told you guys, I dislike Obama, and I got my usually democrat missus to vote for McCain because she dislikes him too.. that was, until gak for brains turned up as the VP, then she rubbished her vote and ticked for an independent.. this year however, she is 100% Obama.
Basically, Obama has loads of flaws, and is clearly beatable, but your Republican party has been hijacked by a bunch of Religious Zealots, and I don't think people in Europe actually realise how bad it is.
Seriously, about 25% of your nation are fething mental. My missus is keeping abridged of things and she said looking at some of the gak the senators say in places like Kentucky just boggles the mind. A quarter of Americans would clearly be more than happy with a Theocracy as long as it was the right Religion (Christian)
Its a good thing the other 75% are doing such a good job of things, otherwise I wouldn't even visit on vacation... Id make her family fly to somewhere neutral we could meet!
Ouze wrote: That's an interesting idea. Do people who are into wargaming generally lean more right than the public at large?
Define "right".
Europe's "Right" is more similar to the US's "Left", IMHO, YMMV, OMG, and so on.
Not really. Europe is to the left of America. It's possible to be right-wing here without being fething mental. Think John McCain.
Also my prediction is coming true - not a single Rest Of The World Republican vote.
I'm a member of the Pirate Party, but will probably vote for Gary Johnson this year. He still has some things I disagree with (wants to repeal the ACA), but I like the majority of his platform.
d-usa wrote: I'm a member of the Pirate Party, but will probably vote for Gary Johnson this year. He still has some things I disagree with (wants to repeal the ACA), but I like the majority of his platform.
Wait, what, really?
How is that even possible?
Or is legalizing pot that important of an issue to you?
I'd vote "other", since I feel the main parties are more or less as bad as each other in many respects, and would love for some third party (or even a whole bunch of them representing different states) to come in and shake up the established order of things.
Forced to choose between the two main parties, I would go with the Dems, as the least insane party.
d-usa wrote: I'm a member of the Pirate Party, but will probably vote for Gary Johnson this year. He still has some things I disagree with (wants to repeal the ACA), but I like the majority of his platform.
Wait, what, really?
How is that even possible?
Or is legalizing pot that important of an issue to you?
Not a pot smoker, never even tried it. How does any of my post make you think that legalizing lot is my main issue?
Its like voting none of the above. And wouldn't it make things a lot more interesting if she won.
Romney's just running so he can lower his taxes another 5 million a year, and he promises to totally deregulate the banks so they can cause another recession. I just don't understand why anyone who's not in the top 1% would ever vote for the guy.
Obama's just the lesser of two evils, He bows down to the republican ideas on the recovery then gets gak by them for not doing enough. The only thing he's really doing right is not pissing off entire groups of americans.
Given a choice between an often ineffectual group of moderates that sometimes have good intentions and howling group of conservatives clawing desperately to hold on to the worst remaining bits of the world as it was 100 years ago, I'll take the former. However, I won't be particularly passionate about it and as I don't live in a swing state I wouldn't have a reason to be anyway.
stopped at Gitmo. Gitmo is still open (this is a good thing).
Pretty sure he backed off once he read what type of prisoners we had in there.
There was a half hearted attempt to move them to Illinois. That was quickly scuttled.
Some say money, some say they didn't want a magnet for terrorist attacks, some say it was against the Geneva Convention to put them next to the active war zone that is Chicago.
TheHammer wrote: The differences between President Obama and Gary Johnson are huge. I don't know how someone can be in favor of the ACA and vote for a libertarian.
It boggles my mind.
Who is your candidate of choice, and do you agree with 100% of his or her platform?
TheHammer wrote: The differences between President Obama and Gary Johnson are huge. I don't know how someone can be in favor of the ACA and vote for a libertarian.
It boggles my mind.
Who is your candidate of choice, and do you agree with 100% of his or her platform?
Problem is I have yet to find a politician that I agree with 100% of their views, but thats because my views go both left and right. I am pro choice, pro military, progun, anti illegal immigration, but very anti large federal government. Essentially I am fine with states making most of the important calls. (As a note I am not religious in the wee bit, I think last time I went to a church was when I was 12.)
That is why I am leaning Gary Johnson this election. I have to look at the candidates and take each of their positions into consideration.
- Which of their positions do I agree and disagree with.
- How do their positions rate.
- What is the likelihood of their position actually becoming policy.
Also have to keep in mind that I am in Oklahoma, so I only have 3 candidates to choose from.
stopped at Gitmo. Gitmo is still open (this is a good thing).
Pretty sure he backed off once he read what type of prisoners we had in there.
There was a half hearted attempt to move them to Illinois. That was quickly scuttled. Some say money, some say they didn't want a magnet for terrorist attacks, some say it was against the Geneva Convention to put them next to the active war zone that is Chicago.
Basically, he tried to shut it down but no where else would accept them.
TheHammer wrote: The differences between President Obama and Gary Johnson are huge. I don't know how someone can be in favor of the ACA and vote for a libertarian.
It boggles my mind.
Who is your candidate of choice, and do you agree with 100% of his or her platform?
Problem is I have yet to find a politician that I agree with 100% of their views, but thats because my views go both left and right. I am pro choice, pro military, progun, anti illegal immigration, but very anti large federal government. Essentially I am fine with states making most of the important calls. (As a note I am not religious in the wee bit, I think last time I went to a church was when I was 12.)
This is partly my problem also. I am a registered Independent and vote for the person who I think would push the country in the right direction. So I am both left and right. I like some of the consertive views while also agreeable to many liberal views. I also am fine with some of the libertarian stuff.
d-usa wrote: That is why I am leaning Gary Johnson this election. I have to look at the candidates and take each of their positions into consideration.
- Which of their positions do I agree and disagree with.
- How do their positions rate.
- What is the likelihood of their position actually becoming policy.
Also have to keep in mind that I am in Oklahoma, so I only have 3 candidates to choose from.
I am also from Oklahoma. I found it interesting that the majority of voters in Oklahoma are Democrats and there is a surge in Independents being registered here in the past couple of years.
Maybe part of the problem is wanting another person, let alone a politician, is going to share 100% of your ideals. It is like being concerned that one can't find a unicorn; it was a Quixotic idea to begin with.
whembly wrote: What I think it's funny is that Romney is labeled as a right-winger (relative to American politics mind you).
He's actually moderate... otherwise, how the feth did he get elected in Mass. where there's only 17% Republicans?
I think that is why he is not really running on much of anything other than the economy. He had to sell himself to a hardcore right-wing crowd in the primaries and is still trying to pass himself off as a conservative despite being a moderate. I don't like him and hope he doesn't win, but I hope that if he does we will see a return to the "true" Romney who is far more moderate than the Republicans want him to be.
TheHammer wrote: The differences between President Obama and Gary Johnson are huge. I don't know how someone can be in favor of the ACA and vote for a libertarian.
It boggles my mind.
Who is your candidate of choice, and do you agree with 100% of his or her platform?
Problem is I have yet to find a politician that I agree with 100% of their views, but thats because my views go both left and right. I am pro choice, pro military, progun, anti illegal immigration, but very anti large federal government. Essentially I am fine with states making most of the important calls. (As a note I am not religious in the wee bit, I think last time I went to a church was when I was 12.)
This is partly my problem also. I am a registered Independent and vote for the person who I think would push the country in the right direction. So I am both left and right. I like some of the consertive views while also agreeable to many liberal views. I also am fine with some of the libertarian stuff.
d-usa wrote: That is why I am leaning Gary Johnson this election. I have to look at the candidates and take each of their positions into consideration.
- Which of their positions do I agree and disagree with.
- How do their positions rate.
- What is the likelihood of their position actually becoming policy.
Also have to keep in mind that I am in Oklahoma, so I only have 3 candidates to choose from.
I am also from Oklahoma. I found it interesting that the majority of voters in Oklahoma are Democrats and there is a surge in Independents being registered here in the past couple of years.
Oklahoma is weird, and the whole "Oklahoman is Republican Territory!" thing is fairly new. The state has voted Republican on a national level for quite a while, but then voted Democrat for the State Legislature for quite a while. We have only had a few years of a Republican legislature in this state, but we should also keep in mind that an Oklahoma Democrat is more of a Blue Dog Democrat.
If you are an Oklahoma Independent then come and join the Pirate Party, there are not that many of us
whembly wrote: What I think it's funny is that Romney is labeled as a right-winger (relative to American politics mind you).
He's actually moderate... otherwise, how the feth did he get elected in Mass. where there's only 17% Republicans?
Oddly enough, smear campaigns and challenging his opponents to show their tax returns.
Well put simply, an East Coast Republlican is a middle america democrat.
I was going for hypocrite.
He is running with no platform that he'll admit to. he wants to run on his business experience, but you just can't ask him about his experience. Its ok for him to ask for his opponents tax returns and their spouses, just don't ask for his.
he wants to run on his business experience, but you just can't ask him about his experience.
Does not compute... see links above.
Its ok for him to ask for his opponents tax returns and their spouses, just don't ask for his.
Again... what?
He released his last two years. That should be sufficient. And why does it matter. He has had a succesful run at Mass Gov and businesses... those are good qualities to have in a president.
Riddle me this Romney-haters: Why is it such a bad thing that he's successful?
Easy E wrote: I always got the feeling that wargamers tend to be more conservative than liberal.
I'm interested to hear anecdotes and see the polling data either way.
There are 5 guys in my gaming group, we're all friends. 3 of us swing to the left, 2 to the right. It's no coincidence that the ones on the right also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with immigrants and prisoners. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Hey! Check this out:
It's no coincidence that the ones on the left also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with greedy bankers and privileged people in general. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the right has a monopoly on spouting ill-informed, half thought-through dogma. If anything, the left is more guilty of this at the moment - people are being encouraged to genuinely hate the wealthy, which is a little odd, considering that not many of them took out sub-prime mortgages...
whembly wrote: My take is that he'll be a "Moderate" Prez.
I'm not going to push the panic button either way. This is partly because I'm not a partisan nutjob, but also because I don't really think the country will change much with either of these candidates. There are certainly differences between them, but neither is truly an extremist, and our system has a way of preventing extreme changes from happening anyway.
Besides, we're only talking about the POTUS. It's our reps in Congress and our state and local officials that have the most impact on our lives anyway.
Romney will accuse others that if they don't release their returns and they're spouses, they're hiding something. was it a Freudian slip? is he projecting? or just a lying sack of ?
and just for the fun of it:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Romney and Bain:
is Romney committing a felony or is he just lying to the public?
If I was going to save 5 million a year on taxes under his tax plan, I'd vote for him. But he has no interest in helping anyone other than the top 1% in the country. Its not hating on him, its looking at him and realizing what a lying sack of he is, and wondering if he flips flops so often he's called an etch a sketch, why would anyone vote for him?
Easy E wrote: I always got the feeling that wargamers tend to be more conservative than liberal.
I'm interested to hear anecdotes and see the polling data either way.
There are 5 guys in my gaming group, we're all friends. 3 of us swing to the left, 2 to the right. It's no coincidence that the ones on the right also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with immigrants and prisoners. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Hey! Check this out:
It's no coincidence that the ones on the left also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with greedy bankers and privileged people in general. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the right has a monopoly on spouting ill-informed, half thought-through dogma. If anything, the left is more guilty of this at the moment - people are being encouraged to genuinely hate the wealthy, which is a little odd, considering that not many of them took out sub-prime mortgages...
The left are objectively more educated than the right.
People are angry at the rich because virtually all GDP growth of the past 30 years has flowed directly into their pockets, yet they pay feth all tax on it.
Easy E wrote: I always got the feeling that wargamers tend to be more conservative than liberal.
I'm interested to hear anecdotes and see the polling data either way.
There are 5 guys in my gaming group, we're all friends. 3 of us swing to the left, 2 to the right. It's no coincidence that the ones on the right also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with immigrants and prisoners. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Hey! Check this out:
It's no coincidence that the ones on the left also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with greedy bankers and privileged people in general. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the right has a monopoly on spouting ill-informed, half thought-through dogma. If anything, the left is more guilty of this at the moment - people are being encouraged to genuinely hate the wealthy, which is a little odd, considering that not many of them took out sub-prime mortgages...
The left are objectively more educated than the right.
People are angry at the rich because virtually all GDP growth of the past 30 years has flowed directly into their pockets, yet they pay feth all tax on it.
In New York, if you make over 500 thousand a year you pay about 45% of your income back to the government, and tax breaks do not make the wealthy come out on top with their taxes, it just makes them lose less. I am sorry, but to me a massive taxation for ANY class should not be the case, what needs to be done IMO is just to remove tax returns flat out (Yes I understand it would hurt many people, both lower and middle class). Besides, the wealthy have always been in power, it is quite frankly a waste of time to bitch about it.
Romney will accuse others that if they don't release their returns and they're spouses, they're hiding something. was it a Freudian slip? is he projecting? or just a lying sack of ?
I consider MSNBC in the same light that you see FoxNews...
You know what season it is??? It's the Political GOTCHA season!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Romney and Bain:
is Romney committing a felony or is he just lying to the public?
If I was going to save 5 million a year on taxes under his tax plan, I'd vote for him. But he has no interest in helping anyone other than the top 1% in the country. Its not hating on him, its looking at him and realizing what a lying sack of he is, and wondering if he flips flops so often he's called an etch a sketch, why would anyone vote for him?
Bain?
Do you understand US corporate laws related to the president/CEO board vs. SEC?
Romney will accuse others that if they don't release their returns and they're spouses, they're hiding something. was it a Freudian slip? is he projecting? or just a lying sack of ?
I consider MSNBC in the same light that you see FoxNews...
You know what season it is??? It's the Political GOTCHA season!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Romney and Bain:
is Romney committing a felony or is he just lying to the public?
If I was going to save 5 million a year on taxes under his tax plan, I'd vote for him. But he has no interest in helping anyone other than the top 1% in the country. Its not hating on him, its looking at him and realizing what a lying sack of he is, and wondering if he flips flops so often he's called an etch a sketch, why would anyone vote for him?
Bain?
Do you understand US corporate laws related to the president/CEO board vs. SEC?
Did you watch the video and hear what Romney was saying in his own words about tax returns? You should watch the video before you just dismiss whats in it.
do you understand either by his own admission Romney is either lying to the american people, or he committed a felony by lying to the government? so which is it? Is he a liar or should he face felony charges?
Romney will accuse others that if they don't release their returns and they're spouses, they're hiding something. was it a Freudian slip? is he projecting? or just a lying sack of ?
I consider MSNBC in the same light that you see FoxNews...
You know what season it is??? It's the Political GOTCHA season!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Romney and Bain:
is Romney committing a felony or is he just lying to the public?
If I was going to save 5 million a year on taxes under his tax plan, I'd vote for him. But he has no interest in helping anyone other than the top 1% in the country. Its not hating on him, its looking at him and realizing what a lying sack of he is, and wondering if he flips flops so often he's called an etch a sketch, why would anyone vote for him?
Bain?
Do you understand US corporate laws related to the president/CEO board vs. SEC?
Did you watch the video and hear what Romney was saying in his own words about tax returns? You should watch the video before you just dismiss whats in it.
do you understand either by his own admission Romney is either lying to the american people, or he committed a felony by lying to the government? so which is it? Is he a liar or should he face felony charges?
I'm work blocked from that link... got a transcript somewhere?
Irregardless... the SEC brings the big mutha-fething hammer down if you did something illegally. If he did break the law, he would've been charged.
Also, as a corporation, you must file quarterly/annual releases to the SEC which names the officers of that company. If memory serves me right, he took a leave of absences to take care of the Winter Games (which implied, that he'd be back), but he never went back to that old position. What I don't know is how/when (or now long) a transfer take when you leave a corporation. I don't think you can just say "I quit" and "thats that".
Also, there's a big distinction between privately held companies vs publically traded companies. Bain wasn't traded publically.
I'd fear the SEC more then the IRS... just saying.
Easy E wrote: I always got the feeling that wargamers tend to be more conservative than liberal.
I'm interested to hear anecdotes and see the polling data either way.
There are 5 guys in my gaming group, we're all friends. 3 of us swing to the left, 2 to the right. It's no coincidence that the ones on the right also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with immigrants and prisoners. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Hey! Check this out:
It's no coincidence that the ones on the left also have a flat-out distorted world view, namely to do with greedy bankers and privileged people in general. Essentially you can't separate their source of news from their political opinion. You can extrapolate this out to the general populace for depressing results.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the right has a monopoly on spouting ill-informed, half thought-through dogma. If anything, the left is more guilty of this at the moment - people are being encouraged to genuinely hate the wealthy, which is a little odd, considering that not many of them took out sub-prime mortgages...
The left are objectively more educated than the right.
That's not really relevant to the post of mine that you quoted, plus I'd like to see some sources for that, in the interests of fair debate. Also, I happen to be educated and a Conservative Party member. In fact, I'd wager that I've been exposed to as much (if not more) left-wing political writing as you. It's largely illiberal horsegak, based on paternalist intellectual elitism. Sorry, but this tired argument that people are right-wing because they're somehow intellectually inferior to those on the left just doesn't wash. It's a myth. It's basically just name-calling.
People are angry at the rich because virtually all GDP growth of the past 30 years has flowed directly into their pockets, yet they pay feth all tax on it.
Yeah, yeah, we've all heard the rhetoric before. The fact is, we've spent beyond our means on social welfare for far too long, in an attempt to mitigate the social damage done by the collapse of our competitiveness in the manufacturing sector. We left ourselves incredibly exposed to the financial crisis, a crisis caused by all of us - lenders and debtors. We all enjoyed the party, but the party's over.
Wardragoon wrote:
In New York, if you make over 500 thousand a year you pay about 45% of your income back to the government, and tax breaks do not make the wealthy come out on top with their taxes, it just makes them lose less. I am sorry, but to me a massive taxation for ANY class should not be the case, what needs to be done IMO is just to remove tax returns flat out (Yes I understand it would hurt many people, both lower and middle class). Besides, the wealthy have always been in power, it is quite frankly a waste of time to bitch about it.
Theoretical tax is not actual tax. If you earn a serious amount of money you can avoid it altogether. Very highly paid professionals tend to pay tax, but businesses/corporations evade tax on a horrific scale.
Albatross wrote:
That's not really relevant to the post of mine that you quoted, plus I'd like to see some sources for that, in the interests of fair debate. Also, I happen to be educated and a Conservative Party member. In fact, I'd wager that I've been exposed to as much (if not more) left-wing political writing as you. It's largely illiberal horsegak, based on paternalist intellectual elitism. Sorry, but this tired argument that people are right-wing because they're somehow intellectually inferior to those on the left just doesn't wash. It's a myth. It's basically just name-calling.
It's common knowledge that in the US the higher a qualification someone has, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. I can dig out a source if you really like though.
Also I definitely did not say *all* right-wingers are of a low intelligence. Please don't assume I would write off the intellectual contributions of millions of people based on their political beliefs.
Albatross wrote:
Yeah, yeah, we've all heard the rhetoric before. The fact is, we've spent beyond our means on social welfare for far too long, in an attempt to mitigate the social damage done by the collapse of our competitiveness in the manufacturing sector. We left ourselves incredibly exposed to the financial crisis, a crisis caused by all of us - lenders and debtors. We all enjoyed the party, but the party's over.
I'm not going to defend the financial policy of the last Labour government, although economically it was decided right-wing so feel free to dig into it.
The size of the state does not stifle the private sector. If I'm running a market stall, do I care if the people buying my goods are paid by the state or by the private sector? How will the state stop me competing with other apple carts?
Businessmen just don't like paying tax. Our economy is insanely productive, it is one of the most efficient in the world. Diverting profits from shareholder dividends (i.e. the rich) to public investment is not an economically damaging thing.
Albatross wrote:
That's not really relevant to the post of mine that you quoted, plus I'd like to see some sources for that, in the interests of fair debate. Also, I happen to be educated and a Conservative Party member. In fact, I'd wager that I've been exposed to as much (if not more) left-wing political writing as you. It's largely illiberal horsegak, based on paternalist intellectual elitism. Sorry, but this tired argument that people are right-wing because they're somehow intellectually inferior to those on the left just doesn't wash. It's a myth. It's basically just name-calling.
It's common knowledge that in the US the higher a qualification someone has, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. I can dig out a source if you really like though.
You'd be wasting your time, because that wouldn't have any bearing on a discussion of UK left/right debate. The political culture is very different, as pointed out in this very thread. Have you read that Daily Mail article, incidentally? That study sounds spurious, putting it kindly.
Also I definitely did not say *all* right-wingers are of a low intelligence. Please don't assume I would write off the intellectual contributions of millions of people based on their political beliefs.
Oh, absolutely not! Perish the thought! You'd just make sweeping generalisations about them, citing a Daily Mail article as 'objective' proof. Well done, you. Good show.
I'm not going to defend the financial policy of the last Labour government, although economically it was decided right-wing so feel free to dig into it.
Actually, no. It was the worst of both worlds. 'De-regulation! Also, spending!!!' It was insanity.
The size of the state does not stifle the private sector. If I'm running a market stall, do I care if the people buying my goods are paid by the state or by the private sector? How will the state stop me competing with other apple carts?
By opening a rival apple cart, exercising artificial deflationary pressure on pricing (with the taxpayers picking up the tab), eventually forcing you out of business. It's ok though, one day the state market workers will decide they want to be paid twice as much and the whole thing will come crashing down because it's not economically viable to run a business that loses money as part of its business model.
I'm work blocked from that link... got a transcript somewhere?
Irregardless... the SEC brings the big mutha-fething hammer down if you did something illegally. If he did break the law, he would've been charged.
Also, as a corporation, you must file quarterly/annual releases to the SEC which names the officers of that company. If memory serves me right, he took a leave of absences to take care of the Winter Games (which implied, that he'd be back), but he never went back to that old position. What I don't know is how/when (or now long) a transfer take when you leave a corporation. I don't think you can just say "I quit" and "thats that".
Also, there's a big distinction between privately held companies vs publically traded companies. Bain wasn't traded publically.
I'd fear the SEC more then the IRS... just saying.
First, go watch the videos when you get the chance, second the fact check site does not include the fact that romney continued to get paid by Bain for the next 2 years, nor does it address the fact that Romney was still running bain for the next 3 years.
http://theweek.com/article/index/230528/mitt-romneys-big-lie-on-bain-6-ways-it-hurts-him "which said that despite Romney's repeated insistence that he left private equity firm Bain Capital in February 1999, he was actually listed in SEC and Massachusetts legal filings as its "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" until 2002, pulling in an "executive" salary of at least $100,000 a year."
01So wait til you get a chance to see the videos, they explain all this better than I can type it out, then try to post a reply to defend him.
As president, Mitt Romney’s first step in improving labor policy will be to ensure that our labor laws create a stable and level playing field on which businesses can operate. As they hire, businesses should not have to worry that a politicized federal agency will rewrite the rules of the employment game without warning and without regard for the law.
Translation: feth anyone who thinks they shouldn't have to pick strawberries and cotton for third-world wages. feth you if you might get pregnant. feth you if you don't want to work in unsafe environments. And feth you if you think there should be a minimum wage.
•Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
Translation: Non-corporation COO's need not apply.
•Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit
Translation: feth you, employees. You'll get paid if your boss thinks you deserve it.
•Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor
Translation: feth you, employees. You try to unionize and you'll get fired and beaten.
Mitt Romney believes in the right of workers to join a union or to not join a union. To exercise that right freely, workers must have access to all the relevant facts they need to make an informed decision. This means hearing from both the union about the potential benefits and from management about potential costs. This also means being able to act on that decision in the privacy of the ballot booth.
Translation: Go ahead and join a union! The company doesn't have to recognize it! But they can threaten to close down the entire site if you unionize, so go vote and feth you!
•Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election
Translation: It's much easier for companies to coerce and intimidate employees via secret ballot, so Mitt will only allow that method.
•Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month
Translation: No fething way is Mitt going to allow the company going to get caught off-guard by the formation of a union.
•Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws
Translation: You wanna be part of the union? feth you, you won't be hired. Mitt will hire the guy that doesn't join the union, instead.
As matters currently stand, unions can take money directly from the paychecks of American workers and spend it on politicking—each election cycle, unions spend hundreds of millions of dollars. In non-Right-to-Work states, employees have little choice but to watch their money go toward such expenditures, even if they do not support the union and its political agenda. The result is the creation of an enormously powerful interest group whose influence is disproportionate to its actual support and whose priorities are fundamentally misaligned with those of businesses and workers—and thus with the needs of the economy.
Translation: Mitt thinks that union employees dislike being part of a union; perhaps because Mitt believes that the smiling guy that greets you at Wal-Mart is actually happy with his job.
•Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically deducted from worker paychecks
Translation: feth you, unions. If it weren't for you, employees would have absolutely no power, just the way Mitt thinks it should be.
I'm work blocked from that link... got a transcript somewhere?
Irregardless... the SEC brings the big mutha-fething hammer down if you did something illegally. If he did break the law, he would've been charged.
Also, as a corporation, you must file quarterly/annual releases to the SEC which names the officers of that company. If memory serves me right, he took a leave of absences to take care of the Winter Games (which implied, that he'd be back), but he never went back to that old position. What I don't know is how/when (or now long) a transfer take when you leave a corporation. I don't think you can just say "I quit" and "thats that".
Also, there's a big distinction between privately held companies vs publically traded companies. Bain wasn't traded publically.
I'd fear the SEC more then the IRS... just saying.
First, go watch the videos when you get the chance, second the fact check site does not include the fact that romney continued to get paid by Bain for the next 2 years, nor does it address the fact that Romney was still running bain for the next 3 years.
Okay... just watched it.
It was awkward... but, I don't see a problem. Maybe I'm just weird or too dense...
http://theweek.com/article/index/230528/mitt-romneys-big-lie-on-bain-6-ways-it-hurts-him
"which said that despite Romney's repeated insistence that he left private equity firm Bain Capital in February 1999, he was actually listed in SEC and Massachusetts legal filings as its "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" until 2002, pulling in an "executive" salary of at least $100,000 a year."
01So wait til you get a chance to see the videos, they explain all this better than I can type it out, then try to post a reply to defend him.
Right... he was basically the OWNER of Bain! Its not like you can disengage yourself from this business overnight...
But, hey, if you wanna ding him for this, go ahead. It's a weak-sauce attack...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: Yeah, sorry for the garish colouring. I intended to use blue as well, but the contrast was even worse, and was too lazy to remove the red.
You'd be wasting your time, because that wouldn't have any bearing on a discussion of UK left/right debate. The political culture is very different, as pointed out in this very thread. Have you read that Daily Mail article, incidentally? That study sounds spurious, putting it kindly.
It was a Canadian study. Unless your right-wing intelligence prevents you from acknoledging the broad trend in left/right across the Western world? References to the study here and here. The study itself is linked on the Guardian website if you'd care to click through.
Actually, no. It was the worst of both worlds. 'De-regulation! Also, spending!!!' It was insanity.
As I said, deregulation is a right-wing principal, don't expect me to defend it. I also won't defend Labour's PFI program, or gross overspends on virtually every public project.
By opening a rival apple cart, exercising artificial deflationary pressure on pricing (with the taxpayers picking up the tab), eventually forcing you out of business. It's ok though, one day the state market workers will decide they want to be paid twice as much and the whole thing will come crashing down because it's not economically viable to run a business that loses money as part of its business model.
In what sector does the state compete with the private to the private's detriment?
In sectors where private and the state compete, the state is almost always worse off. Just look at health, where the NHS spends billions of pounds training up doctors and nurses, only for many of them to leave to highly paid jobs in the private sector.
Testify wrote: It's common knowledge that in the US the higher a qualification someone has, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. I can dig out a source if you really like though.
You said left-leaning types were more intelligent, not that they'd completed a higher level of education. I've known some absolute fethwits with Master's degrees.
Also, is the correlation you point out proof that liberals are simply more intelligent, or is it proof that if you spend five to seven years being taught by an unquestionably liberalized establishment, you'll tend to think more liberal when you get out? Food for thought.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One more before I go to bed.
This was funny:
We’re a full generation apart, Governor Romney and I. And, in some ways, we’re a little different. There are the songs on his iPod, which I’ve heard on the campaign bus ...and on many hotel elevators. He actually urged me to play some of these songs at campaign rallies. I said, I hope it’s not a deal-breaker Mitt, but my playlist starts withAC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin.
Awesome-sauce.
@d-usa, this was what *I* was trying to say in the other thread... Ryan articulated it better:
Behind every small business, there’s a story worth knowing. All the corner shops in our towns and cities, the restaurants, cleaners, gyms, hair salons, hardware stores— these didn’t come out of nowhere. A lot of heart goes into each one. And if small businesspeople say they made it on their own, all they are saying is that nobody else worked seven days a week in their place. Nobody showed up in their place to open the door at five in the morning. Nobody did their thinking, and worrying, and sweating for them. After all that work, and in a bad economy, it sure doesn’t help to hear from their president that government gets the credit. What they deserve to hear is the truth: Yes, you did build that.
Seaward wrote:Also, is the correlation you point out proof that liberals are simply more intelligent, or is it proof that if you spend five to seven years being taught by an unquestionably liberalized establishment, you'll tend to think more liberal when you get out? Food for thought.
I think the proof is that liberals typically don't believe man rode dinosaurs 6000 years ago when the Earth was new. That being said, statistically the left wingers will be better educated simply because they have a lower percentage of willful ignorance (eg. Earth- and life-sciences). The statistics reflect the answer originally posted, but not for the reasons generally assumed.
...which brings me to an interesting point: I'm honestly saddened to see the melding of the Republican party with the Christian crazies. Imagine the discourses on current issues that could be had between the Democrats and the Republicans of pre-1980 (which is approximately when the Christian fundamentalists truly started to permeate the Republican base)
whembly wrote:To those outside of US... does it get this silly?
Silly? I'm afraid so. However, it gets nowhere near as pathetic.
DAaddict wrote: PersonallyI don't think the Dems plan - or lack there of - holds any water. The general stick-your-head-in-the-sand and keep running up the debt on things we would LIKE to have is getting to be alarming.
Now I think the Republican austerity plan is going to be highly unpopular unless they can really communicate.
My prediction is the populace will vote for bread and circuses. All of you non-US citizens get to watch Rome burn. While we continue to hope we have a little change left in our pockets.
Budget growth has been largest during Republican administrations since Regan.
DAaddict wrote: PersonallyI don't think the Dems plan - or lack there of - holds any water. The general stick-your-head-in-the-sand and keep running up the debt on things we would LIKE to have is getting to be alarming.
Now I think the Republican austerity plan is going to be highly unpopular unless they can really communicate.
My prediction is the populace will vote for bread and circuses. All of you non-US citizens get to watch Rome burn. While we continue to hope we have a little change left in our pockets.
Budget growth has been largest during Republican administrations since Regan.
Meanwhile, the claim that the Democrats don't have a plan is based off of ignorance.
You'd be wasting your time, because that wouldn't have any bearing on a discussion of UK left/right debate. The political culture is very different, as pointed out in this very thread. Have you read that Daily Mail article, incidentally? That study sounds spurious, putting it kindly.
It was a Canadian study. Unless your right-wing intelligence prevents you from acknoledging the broad trend in left/right across the Western world?
Listen, if you're going to be snide, at least try not to make yourself look foolish in the process. I was replying to this:
Testify wrote:It's common knowledge that in the US the higher a qualification someone has, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. I can dig out a source if you really like though.
And yes, I am aware that it was a Canadian study. It sounds distinctly dodgy. Testing the intelligence of British kids in the 1950s, then recording their political leanings in 1970? And that is supposed to be objective proof? There are 'scientific' studies 'proving' that black people were less intelligent than whites. It's a wonderful thing, bias.
And also, I find it hilarious that you assume that only people ostensibly on the right are socially conservative. Go to any (post-)industrial northern Labour town. Seriously, do it. Won't find many social liberals there. In fact, trades unionists were some of the most vociferous racists, historically.
By opening a rival apple cart, exercising artificial deflationary pressure on pricing (with the taxpayers picking up the tab), eventually forcing you out of business. It's ok though, one day the state market workers will decide they want to be paid twice as much and the whole thing will come crashing down because it's not economically viable to run a business that loses money as part of its business model.
In what sector does the state compete with the private to the private's detriment?
In sectors where private and the state compete, the state is almost always worse off. Just look at health, where the NHS spends billions of pounds training up doctors and nurses, only for many of them to leave to highly paid jobs in the private sector.
Which is a tiny fraction of the size of the NHS. Case in point. Incidentally, my example was a fairly obvious microcosm of what happened to British manufacturing in the 1970s. I'm sure you picked up on that, what with you being a super-intelligent lefty, and all...
[quote=whembly 473021 4710902 39c390908b09e54f8e65b630e8dd196c.jpgIrregardless... the SEC brings the big mutha-fething hammer down if you did something illegally. If he did break the law, he would've been charged.
I'd fear the SEC more then the IRS... just saying.
This part was just too precious!
More like if he did something illegal, the SEC would fine him a pitiful amount in exchange for signing a document that said he didn't agree he did anything illegal or wrongful. If you consider that one big-mutha fething hammer.... shrug.
In November 2011, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court in Manhattan, threw out a settlement between the S.E.C. and Citigroup over a 2007 mortgage derivatives deal, saying that the S.E.C.’s policy of settling cases by allowing a company to neither admit nor deny the agency’s allegations did not satisfy the law.
The judge ruled that the S.E.C.’s $285 million settlement, is “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest” because it does not provide the court with evidence on which to judge the settlement.
The ruling could have thrown the S.E.C.’s enforcement efforts into chaos, because a majority of the fraud cases and other actions that the agency brings against Wall Street firms are settled out of court, most often with a condition that the defendant does not admit that it violated the law while also promising not to deny it. That condition gives a company or individual an advantage in subsequent civil litigation for damages, because cases in which no facts are established cannot be used in evidence in other cases, like shareholder lawsuits seeking recovery of losses or damages.
As someone who owns a small business and who has worked long hours to meet deadlines and to track down new clients, I'm telling you that without roads, infrastructure, educated people to employee, mail service, the internet, and a million other things (such as Pell Grants that helped me pay for school, so I could do what I'm doing) that I would not have been able to succeed because we'd still be living in the dark ages and I probably would have died of anal bleeding or something equally awful.
What I'm trying to say is this: Anyone that says they are 100% responsible for their success and their success comes from their hard work and aptitude and NOTHING ELSE is either lying, or a despicable person worthy of contempt.
TheHammer wrote: As someone who owns a small business and who has worked long hours to meet deadlines and to track down new clients, I'm telling you that without roads, infrastructure, educated people to employee, mail service, the internet, and a million other things (such as Pell Grants that helped me pay for school, so I could do what I'm doing) that I would not have been able to succeed because we'd still be living in the dark ages and I probably would have died of anal bleeding or something equally awful.
What I'm trying to say is this: Anyone that says they are 100% responsible for their success and their success comes from their hard work and aptitude and NOTHING ELSE is either lying, or a despicable person worthy of contempt.
I get what you (and d-usa) are saying... I'm just trying to point out the emotional aspect of this... you know, politics.
You're not just pointing out the politics of it, you're harping on an intellectually dishonest talking point because you don't like Obama because you buy into all of those intellectually dishonest talking points.
TheHammer wrote: As someone who owns a small business and who has worked long hours to meet deadlines and to track down new clients, I'm telling you that without roads, infrastructure, educated people to employee, mail service, the internet, and a million other things (such as Pell Grants that helped me pay for school, so I could do what I'm doing) that I would not have been able to succeed because we'd still be living in the dark ages and I probably would have died of anal bleeding or something equally awful.
What I'm trying to say is this: Anyone that says they are 100% responsible for their success and their success comes from their hard work and aptitude and NOTHING ELSE is either lying, or a despicable person worthy of contempt.
I get what you (and d-usa) are saying... I'm just trying to point out the emotional aspect of this... you know, politics.
If by politics you mean ignoring what was really said in order to make a point that isn't really there, then you are doing it correctly.
TheHammer wrote: As someone who owns a small business and who has worked long hours to meet deadlines and to track down new clients, I'm telling you that without roads, infrastructure, educated people to employee, mail service, the internet, and a million other things (such as Pell Grants that helped me pay for school, so I could do what I'm doing) that I would not have been able to succeed because we'd still be living in the dark ages and I probably would have died of anal bleeding or something equally awful.
What I'm trying to say is this: Anyone that says they are 100% responsible for their success and their success comes from their hard work and aptitude and NOTHING ELSE is either lying, or a despicable person worthy of contempt.
I get what you (and d-usa) are saying... I'm just trying to point out the emotional aspect of this... you know, politics.
If by politics you mean ignoring what was really said in order to make a point that isn't really there, then you are doing it correctly.
Heh... there's validity to that.
I just took umbrage to that comment... and the whole context of it made it worst.
What did you take umbrage about? What small business do you know that did not use public roads, public mail, get Small Business Administration loans, not use the labor of workers educated in public education, use the internet, and a million other things.
It is literally the least offensive statement ever.
I don't care about your feelings, I care about facts and reality.
TheHammer wrote: As someone who owns a small business and who has worked long hours to meet deadlines and to track down new clients, I'm telling you that without roads, infrastructure, educated people to employee, mail service, the internet, and a million other things (such as Pell Grants that helped me pay for school, so I could do what I'm doing) that I would not have been able to succeed because we'd still be living in the dark ages and I probably would have died of anal bleeding or something equally awful.
What I'm trying to say is this: Anyone that says they are 100% responsible for their success and their success comes from their hard work and aptitude and NOTHING ELSE is either lying, or a despicable person worthy of contempt.
I get what you (and d-usa) are saying... I'm just trying to point out the emotional aspect of this... you know, politics.
If by politics you mean ignoring what was really said in order to make a point that isn't really there, then you are doing it correctly.
Heh... there's validity to that.
I just took umbrage to that comment... and the whole context of it made it worst.
I'm not the only one who feels this way...
Just because people feel bad that somebody said the truth, that government helped even though they don't like the government, doesn't make the truth any different.
Maybe next time a business is on fire the fire department should pull up and refuse to put the fire out saying "we didn't build that"...
Frazzled wrote: SEC actions are public. Do you have any proof of SEC actions against Romney or Bain related to whatever the hell you are supposedly accusing him of?
A reminder if you lie here you may open yourself to legal liability. Just a reminder.
For the record, I didn;t accuse Romney of anything.
I was just pointing out that the SEC does not swing a .... big mutha truckin' hammer.... at all. It barely swings a feather pillow.
You're not just pointing out the politics of it, you're harping on an intellectually dishonest talking point because you don't like Obama because you buy into all of those intellectually dishonest talking points.
Well, that certainly looks like the pot calling the kettle black.
It's a stupid statement. It's an especially stupid political statement.
TheHammer wrote: As someone who owns a small business and who has worked long hours to meet deadlines and to track down new clients, I'm telling you that without roads, infrastructure, educated people to employee, mail service, the internet, and a million other things (such as Pell Grants that helped me pay for school, so I could do what I'm doing) that I would not have been able to succeed because we'd still be living in the dark ages and I probably would have died of anal bleeding or something equally awful.
What I'm trying to say is this: Anyone that says they are 100% responsible for their success and their success comes from their hard work and aptitude and NOTHING ELSE is either lying, or a despicable person worthy of contempt.
I get what you (and d-usa) are saying... I'm just trying to point out the emotional aspect of this... you know, politics.
If by politics you mean ignoring what was really said in order to make a point that isn't really there, then you are doing it correctly.
Heh... there's validity to that.
I just took umbrage to that comment... and the whole context of it made it worst.
I'm not the only one who feels this way...
Just because people feel bad that somebody said the truth, that government helped even though they don't like the government, doesn't make the truth any different.
Maybe next time a business is on fire the fire department should pull up and refuse to put the fire out saying "we didn't build that"...
It was needlessly insulting. He wasn’t just calling on successful people to pay more in tax but was being dismissive of their accomplishments.
The piece before that, he said (that's, why the overall context is worse):
I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
Lemme get this straight... he's always struck by people who take credit for their own successes? Obviously, every successful outcome in life, and every failed one, arises from a combination of internal and external factors. But it's the tone when he said this, amused by the very idea of people taking credit for their achievements, was very off-putting.
It's like... we're not supposed to be proud of something we've achieved in our lives. Really!??!
Frazzled wrote: SEC actions are public. Do you have any proof of SEC actions against Romney or Bain related to whatever the hell you are supposedly accusing him of?
A reminder if you lie here you may open yourself to legal liability. Just a reminder.
For the record, I didn;t accuse Romney of anything.
I was just pointing out that the SEC does not swing a .... big mutha truckin' hammer.... at all. It barely swings a feather pillow.
Tell that to Enron and Arthur Anderson (psst, they ain't around)... beside, it was BECAUSE of those two companies that the SEC got stronger (Sarbanes–Oxley Act?).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Red... yes, we're strange...
Where have I been intellectually dishonest here, Seaward? Please point out an example.
And, yes, whembly: if you believe that hard work and intelligence alone is enough to guarantee success you are someone who believes in fantasy. For most people hard work and intelligence are incredibly important so they can capitalize on a lucky break, or otherwise take advantage of advantageous circumstances, but those two qualities alone are not at all required for success.
Believing they are just means you can shrug your shoulders and smile as you take away every social program that assist the poor.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And it's foolish to believe the SEC is strong or even effective. Look into regulatory capture and a host of other issues if you want to know why.
TheHammer wrote: Where have I been intellectually dishonest here, Seaward? Please point out an example.
I was more meaning you were being willfully ignorant.
Let me ask you this: did the United States of America build the Space Shuttle program? How about a blue water navy? A transcontinental railroad? Interstate highways? All were built using ideas, mechanisms, and, in some cases, labor and products from other countries. Does that make them less ours?
TheHammer wrote: Where have I been intellectually dishonest here, Seaward? Please point out an example.
And, yes, whembly: if you believe that hard work and intelligence alone is enough to guarantee success you are someone who believes in fantasy. For most people hard work and intelligence are incredibly important so they can capitalize on a lucky break, or otherwise take advantage of advantageous circumstances, but those two qualities alone are not at all required for success.
Believing they are just means you can shrug your shoulders and smile as you take away every social program that assist the poor.
STOP. PUTTING. WORDS. IN. MY. MOUTH.
Where did I say that want to take away every social program that assist the poor??
And I've already said my piece about Obama's statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And it's foolish to believe the SEC is strong or even effective. Look into regulatory capture and a host of other issues if you want to know why.
But isn't it equally dismissive and insulting for the people that are that upset about the statement to basically say and imply this:
"Forget the teachers that educated me and my employees, forget the SBA that gave me a loan, forget the police and fire department that protects my property, forget the city that keeps the roads open. Nobody had anything to do with my success except ME ME ME.!"
Would more than 1 person from outside the US please vote for the Republicans? You're making it seem like they're grossly out of touch with anything the world outside the US would call reality.
Frazzled wrote: SEC actions are public. Do you have any proof of SEC actions against Romney or Bain related to whatever the hell you are supposedly accusing him of?
A reminder if you lie here you may open yourself to legal liability. Just a reminder.
For the record, I didn;t accuse Romney of anything.
I was just pointing out that the SEC does not swing a .... big mutha truckin' hammer.... at all. It barely swings a feather pillow.
Mmmm...often thats not the case. Get convicted of insider trading and you're going to jail. Ask Marth Stewart.
Chongara wrote: Would more than 1 person from outside the US please vote for the Republicans? You're making it seem like they're grossly out of touch with anything the world outside the US would call reality.
TheHammer wrote: Where have I been intellectually dishonest here, Seaward? Please point out an example.
I was more meaning you were being willfully ignorant.
Let me ask you this: did the United States of America build the Space Shuttle program? How about a blue water navy? A transcontinental railroad? Interstate highways? All were built using ideas, mechanisms, and, in some cases, labor and products from other countries. Does that make them less ours?
What are you even talking about? Are you really trying to compare the community efforts that went into each of those to what we are talking about above?
Of course the United States used European (sometimes Nazi, not really a proud moment) scientists for our space program, Chinese immigrants to build the transcontinental railroad, and lots of other people and ideas from around the world. In many cases those people became American and contributed to the American civil society. More to the point, it's difficult to talk about any of those successes without also including the stories of those from outside America.
So, yeah, the United States built the Space Shuttle program, but people openly acknowledge that there were many scientists, engineers, manufacturers, and ideas that were not native to the United States that went into this project. Sure, it's an American success but people don't put their fingers into their ears and start shouting when others mention how outside people may have been helpful.
I'm just completely confused about what your point is.
What we're talking about is a situation where President Obama would mention that Chinese labor was essential to the Intercontinental Railroad being built and people getting furious at him for insinuating that Americans didn't build it all by themselves.
Or, if you want to take a more cynical view of things, this is a conversation by successful business people who became successful, in part, because of the benefits given to them by civil society and now that they have their success they want to destroy the very civil society that benefited them so they can stifle competition.
d-usa wrote: But isn't it equally dismissive and insulting for the people that are that upset about the statement to basically say and imply this:
"Forget the teachers that educated me and my employees, forget the SBA that gave me a loan, forget the police and fire department that protects my property, forget the city that keeps the roads open. Nobody had anything to do with my success except ME ME ME.!"
*sigh*
No... because, no one is really saying that and I think you know it.
TheHammer wrote: Where have I been intellectually dishonest here, Seaward? Please point out an example.
And, yes, whembly: if you believe that hard work and intelligence alone is enough to guarantee success you are someone who believes in fantasy. For most people hard work and intelligence are incredibly important so they can capitalize on a lucky break, or otherwise take advantage of advantageous circumstances, but those two qualities alone are not at all required for success.
Believing they are just means you can shrug your shoulders and smile as you take away every social program that assist the poor.
STOP. PUTTING. WORDS. IN. MY. MOUTH.
Where did I say that want to take away every social program that assist the poor??
And I've already said my piece about Obama's statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And it's foolish to believe the SEC is strong or even effective. Look into regulatory capture and a host of other issues if you want to know why.
And its VERY foolish to ignore the SEC.
Are you going to vote for Romney / Ryan? Then yes, you do want to cut services to the poor in massive and horrible ways. This whole conversation about "You didn't build that" really helps explain the rationale and thinking behind why they plan on cutting those services.
d-usa wrote: But isn't it equally dismissive and insulting for the people that are that upset about the statement to basically say and imply this:
"Forget the teachers that educated me and my employees, forget the SBA that gave me a loan, forget the police and fire department that protects my property, forget the city that keeps the roads open. Nobody had anything to do with my success except ME ME ME.!"
*sigh*
No... because, no one is really saying that and I think you know it.
Except the right IS saying that. They want to cut government because government, they say, does nothing for nobody except for those lazy welfare queens and "young bucks" who spend their food stamps on malt liquor.
Are you not paying attention, or do you not see that there is a movement of older white Americans who quite literally want to tear the government down and most of the things it does to foster a productive economy?
Chongara wrote: Would more than 1 person from outside the US please vote for the Republicans? You're making it seem like they're grossly out of touch with anything the world outside the US would call reality.
That's rude.
The Republicans are bat-gak insane. The rest of the world has noticed this.
d-usa wrote: But isn't it equally dismissive and insulting for the people that are that upset about the statement to basically say and imply this:
"Forget the teachers that educated me and my employees, forget the SBA that gave me a loan, forget the police and fire department that protects my property, forget the city that keeps the roads open. Nobody had anything to do with my success except ME ME ME.!"
*sigh*
No... because, no one is really saying that and I think you know it.
So the big stage at the RNC with the letters "We DID build that" isn't saying that?
Because that is easily how people can and will interpret that.
The same way that Obama didn't say that people didn't work hard to build their businesses, but I think you know that.
Chongara wrote: Would more than 1 person from outside the US please vote for the Republicans? You're making it seem like they're grossly out of touch with anything the world outside the US would call reality.
That's rude.
The Republicans are bat-gak insane. The rest of the world has noticed this.
Sounds like somebody hates Freedom.
Anyone who hates Ronald Reagan's greatest invention can't be taken seriously.
TheHammer wrote: What we're talking about is a situation where President Obama would mention that Chinese labor was essential to the Intercontinental Railroad being built and people getting furious at him for insinuating that Americans didn't build it all by themselves.
Not correct, I'm afraid. We're talking about a situation where President Obama would mention that Chinese labor was essential to the Intercontinental Railroad being built, thus saying, "America didn't build that." Because, as you've argued so strenuously above, it's unfair to claim that an individual or an entity built something unless they and only they had anything to do with it.
Let's go with the entire quotation from that speech:
If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
So, yeah, he was referring to the infrastructure, civil society, and other outside mechanisms society has created that enabled companies to be built. Those with companies didn't build the internet, or all the roads they use, and whatever.
All he is saying is that one should be aware and honest in acknowledging that it is in all of our best interests that there exists a civil society, infrastructure, and etc so that enterprise can actually exist and prosper.
As far as the Intercontinental Railroad goes, this would be like President Obama saying that the Union Pacific Railroad did not create China and its people.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More to the point, companies and individuals pay taxes and these all go towards the collective good which we can all then utilize for our own prosperity. Because that's how a mature society operates.
I always promise not too, but every 4 years, I stay up all night watching a map of America turn blue or red, listen to some pundits that have been wheeled out to say the obvious, and end up getting drunk. I've been doing this since the mid 1990s :( The question is why do I keep putting myself through it? I've sat through Jimmy Carter's inauguration, I've listened to interviews with Bob Dole (never again!!) and wondered why a country with lots of smart and kind people put themselves through it
Let's go with the entire quotation from that speech:
I'm familiar with it.
So, yeah, he was referring to the infrastructure, civil society, and other outside mechanisms society has created that enabled companies to be built. Those with companies didn't build the internet, or all the roads they use, and whatever.
He was saying that, yes. Then he went on to say that if you've got a business, you didn't build it. It's a fundamentally different statement from what came before. It goes much, much farther than, "The apparatus of civil society allowed you to create a business." The first question that springs to mind is...who did build it, if you didn't?
As far as the Intercontinental Railroad goes, this would be like President Obama saying that the Union Pacific Railroad did not create China and its people.
Do they even do analogies in the verbal section of the SAT anymore?
Yes, because in the middle of a speech about the public good and its importance to private industry he would clearly go and make the ad absurdum point that no one built anything ever, except government.
This might make some logical sense if Obama had any record of actually trying to nationalize industry, or otherwise being an actual socialist. He hasn't, though, and it's just a ridiculous contention that is being deliberately dishonest.
In many ways, yes. If you fail a business venture, society suffers from that. If you have a horrible upbringing and commit criminal acts, society suffers from that. Just as society benefits from your success (usually). And in many cases, people are glad to lay the blame on society-- often to try to get away from accepting their own responsibility-- even as they're trying to avoid giving credit and taking responsibility for all the success they've had, even if it's wholly unmerited and based mostly on luck alone.
whembly wrote: I just took umbrage to that comment... and the whole context of it made it worst.
Oh, so you think you built everything in your life yourself with no help from anyone else?
How the hell is it offensive to say "you had help from society"? You did. Trying to claim otherwise is delusional.
So... if I fail at whatever I do... does society "share" that?
In most modern societies: yes.
That is why you have social protection programs like welfare, global healthcare and unemployment payments, so that society "shares" the burden from your personal failures.
Frazzled wrote: SEC actions are public. Do you have any proof of SEC actions against Romney or Bain related to whatever the hell you are supposedly accusing him of?
A reminder if you lie here you may open yourself to legal liability. Just a reminder.
It's not an accusation, Romney is just a lying sack of
Romeny states that he left Bain in 1999 to keep from being blamed for costing many people their jobs, and robbing them of their pensions. He then tells the SEC that he is the sole stockholder, ceo and cheif executive of bain until 2002, while still getting a paycheck from bain.
No one is accusing him of lying to the government, they're just pointing out that he is lying.
Because he either lied to the government (a felony) or he's lying to us. Either way, how can you take anything he says seriously when he's a proven liar?
And we are also just supposed to take his word he's paying his taxes.
A vote for Romney is a vote that its ok to lie to the american people.
Because he either lied to the government (a felony) or he's lying to us. Either way, how can you take anything he says seriously when he's a proven liar?
And we are also just supposed to take his word he's paying his taxes.
A vote for Romney is a vote that its ok to lie to the american people.
Melissia wrote: In many ways, yes. If you fail a business venture, society suffers from that. If you have a horrible upbringing and commit criminal acts, society suffers from that. Just as society benefits from your success (usually). And in many cases, people are glad to lay the blame on society-- often to try to get away from accepting their own responsibility-- even as they're trying to avoid giving credit and taking responsibility for all the success they've had, even if it's wholly unmerited and based mostly on luck alone.
I don't "owe" society anymore than they "owe" me.
I've paid my TAXES that goes to social services and infrastructure, and that's fine. Isn't that what we're supposed to do?
But let me be concise here:
My successes areMINE.
My failures are MINE.
Whatever disadvantage I may have, I will NOT blame others... I will work HARDER.
Everyone, should have the same opportunity to achieve whatever it is they want.
And I don't want the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners (<--- government).
Obama and the current Democatic parties (and some Republicans to be fair) are not Communist or Socialist... they're STATIST.
It's like this old email chain that goes around during the presidential elections (haven't seen it yet, but its around) and it goes like this:
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, but
her father was a staunch Republican. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to high
taxes and excessive welfare programs. He stopped her and asked how she was doing in school.
She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA, but it was really tough. She had to study all the time and never had time to go
out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all
her time studying. On top of that, the part-time job her father insisted she keep left absolutely no time for anything else.
He asked, 'How is your friend Mary?' She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied,
but was very popular on campus, didn't have a job, and went to all the parties. She was always complaining about not
having any money, but didn't want to work. Why, she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and request that 1.0 be taken off her 4.0 and given
it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a respectable 3.0 GPA. Then, she could also give
her friend half the money she'd earned from her job so that her friend would no longer be broke. The daughter angrily
fired back, 'That wouldn't be fair. I worked really hard for my grades and money, and Mary just loafs. Why should her
laziness and irresponsibility be rewarded with half of what I've worked for?' The father slowly smiled and said,
'Welcome to the Republican Party'."
So he said he left Bain to keep from being blamed for robbing them of their pensions? It would be interesting to see the clip of him leaving Bain to avoid blame for robbing them of pensions.
Frazzled wrote: So he said he left Bain to keep from being blamed for robbing them of their pensions? It would be interesting to see the clip of him leaving Bain to avoid blame for robbing them of pensions.
whembly wrote: I just took umbrage to that comment... and the whole context of it made it worst.
Oh, so you think you built everything in your life yourself with no help from anyone else?
How the hell is it offensive to say "you had help from society"? You did. Trying to claim otherwise is delusional.
So... if I fail at whatever I do... does society "share" that?
In most modern societies: yes.
That is why you have social protection programs like welfare, global healthcare and unemployment payments, so that society "shares" the burden from your personal failures.
I reject this premise.
It's one thing to have social safety nets. Those are fine as gak happens and EVERYONE pays something into this... because we're a wealthy/generous society. Not because we're "supposed" to do it.
whembly wrote: I just took umbrage to that comment... and the whole context of it made it worst.
Oh, so you think you built everything in your life yourself with no help from anyone else?
How the hell is it offensive to say "you had help from society"? You did. Trying to claim otherwise is delusional.
So... if I fail at whatever I do... does society "share" that?
Are the unemployment numbers high because everybody is lazy, or are they high because business people failed?
So yes, society does "share" that.
-Your employees loose their jobs.
-City/County/State gets less sales tax because your business failed.
-City/County/State/Federal gets less payroll tax because your business failed.
-Every business you purchased supplies from suffers because your business failed.
-Their employees now suffer and their city/county/state/federal taxes are reduced because your business failed.
-Your business is now vacant, decreasing the property values of the other buildings and offices around it, so they suffer because your business failed.
-If you now collect unemployment, then everybody pays you because your business failed.
If I was an employee of anybody who says that, I would quit and let him continue to build his success on his own, since clearly I am not a factor in it.
Frazzled wrote: So he said he left Bain to keep from being blamed for robbing them of their pensions? It would be interesting to see the clip of him leaving Bain to avoid blame for robbing them of pensions.
go back a few pages.
Please show me the clip where he specifically said he bailed on Bain to avoid blame for robbing them of pensions. I'll wait. I have a book.
never made that claim, but it is further proof of why america is deservedly ranked 37th in health care.
Your 110% sure he lied on paying taxes but your unsure if he was responsible for Mrs Soptic death. Yet you point out our healthcare. So since she wasn't covered by medical insurance due to the factory closing is it or is it not Romney fault.
never made that claim, but it is further proof of why america is deservedly ranked 37th in health care.
Your 110% sure he lied on paying taxes but your unsure if he was responsible for Mrs Soptic death. Yet you point out our healthcare. So since she wasn't covered by medical insurance due to the factory closing is it or is it not Romney fault.
Relevance? You brought her up, state your case. What does she have to do with anything about how Romney is a proven liar and a hypocrite?
Out of respect for all the funny things that Ronald Reagan said and the warm affection he had for the UK, I voted Republican non US citizen Plus, it adds some balance to the poll.
Spoiler:
I'd prefer my payment to be in the form of plastic minis. Some flames of war British paratroopers (late war) will suffice
And I'm reading a lot of American history right now.
Apparently, a bunch of guys didn't like being taxed, so they fought a war and defeated some redcoats. Afterwards, THEY started taxing people, so another bunch of guys decided to fight back, but the bunch of guys decided to fight the other bunch of guys, and the other bunch of guys won and got their taxes passed into law except they were bluecoats and not redcoats. Very confusing
whembly wrote: I just took umbrage to that comment... and the whole context of it made it worst.
Oh, so you think you built everything in your life yourself with no help from anyone else?
How the hell is it offensive to say "you had help from society"? You did. Trying to claim otherwise is delusional.
So... if I fail at whatever I do... does society "share" that?
Are the unemployment numbers high because everybody is lazy, or are they high because business people failed?
So yes, society does "share" that.
-Your employees loose their jobs.
-City/County/State gets less sales tax because your business failed.
-City/County/State/Federal gets less payroll tax because your business failed.
-Every business you purchased supplies from suffers because your business failed.
-Their employees now suffer and their city/county/state/federal taxes are reduced because your business failed.
-Your business is now vacant, decreasing the property values of the other buildings and offices around it, so they suffer because your business failed.
-If you now collect unemployment, then everybody pays you because your business failed.
You're missing my point.
EVERYONE pays into these social services via taxation. So EVERYONE can use the services when the gak hits the fan.
But society isn't the one spilling blood, guts, sweat and private resources to ensure that a business is successful.
Society provides the framework to allow a potential business to thrive. Which therefore due to this increased business the society itself reaps the benefits.
If I was an employee of anybody who says that, I would quit and let him continue to build his success on his own, since clearly I am not a factor in it.
Wait... so, you didn't want a paycheck from your employer? Because, if you provided services for free, then yes, I'd leave that employer too.
Funny there's mention of that fact that my failures are mine too...
Relevance? You brought her up, state your case. What does she have to do with anything about how Romney is a proven liar and a hypocrite?
See how far your conviction goes against Romney. If your accusing him of not paying taxes for ten years then he's a felon is he not. By my perception your not far off from calling him a murderer yet.
Apparently, a bunch of guys didn't like being taxed, so they fought a war and defeated some redcoats. Afterwards, THEY started taxing people, so another bunch of guys decided to fight back, but the bunch of guys decided to fight the other bunch of guys, and the other bunch of guys won and got their taxes passed into law except they were bluecoats and not redcoats. Very confusing
Yes, they felt that being British subjects they were entitled to the same liberties as other British subjects (i.e. in the metropolitan). When these were declined they chose instead to call themselves "Americans".
whembly wrote: I just took umbrage to that comment... and the whole context of it made it worst.
Oh, so you think you built everything in your life yourself with no help from anyone else?
How the hell is it offensive to say "you had help from society"? You did. Trying to claim otherwise is delusional.
So... if I fail at whatever I do... does society "share" that?
Are the unemployment numbers high because everybody is lazy, or are they high because business people failed?
So yes, society does "share" that.
-Your employees loose their jobs.
-City/County/State gets less sales tax because your business failed.
-City/County/State/Federal gets less payroll tax because your business failed.
-Every business you purchased supplies from suffers because your business failed.
-Their employees now suffer and their city/county/state/federal taxes are reduced because your business failed.
-Your business is now vacant, decreasing the property values of the other buildings and offices around it, so they suffer because your business failed.
-If you now collect unemployment, then everybody pays you because your business failed.
You're missing my point..
I thought your point was that society doesn't share your failures, so I pointed out how society does suffer if you fail.
But I think you made it pretty clear that you think that:
1) Every successful business is only successful because of you.
2) Employees are just there to collect a paycheck and don't make a business successful, they are just doing what they are paid to do.
3) Even though society and government had nothing to do with your success, they better be there to pick up the pieces if you fail because that is their job.
I thought your point was that society doesn't share your failures, so I pointed out how society does suffer if you fail.
Right... and who pays for those services? Or, do you think the gov is printing funny money?
But I think you made it pretty clear that you think that:
1) Every successful business is only successful because of you.
I wish I had that power re-read that. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
2) Employees are just there to collect a paycheck and don't make a business successful, they are just doing what they are paid to do.
Sure the employee are part of the success, but they're paid for the services rendered.
3) Even though society and government had nothing to do with your success, they better be there to pick up the pieces if you fail because that is their job.
That statement would be true if the collective private individuals didn't pay the taxes to use these safety net.
You're getting good at strawman arguements. (or is it "Aunt Sally"?)
But society isn't the one spilling blood, guts, sweat and private resources to ensure that a business is successful.
Society provides the framework to allow a potential business to thrive. Which therefore due to this increased business the society itself reaps the benefits.
Of course it is, how do you think that framework is maintained?
Many people suffer hardship while refusing to turn to theft or violence because they see it as either criminal or dishonorable, both of which are predicated on social constructs. Similarly, many people act to police those who do turn to theft or violence so as to minimize the rate of incidence because of those same social constructs.
Relevance? You brought her up, state your case. What does she have to do with anything about how Romney is a proven liar and a hypocrite?
See how far your conviction goes against Romney. If your accusing him of not paying taxes for ten years then he's a felon is he not. By my perception your not far off from calling him a murderer yet.
You should go back through the thread and actually read what I've written.
My convictions are against lairs and hypocrites, I don't trust them, I don't believe a thing they say without proof, and I sure don't vote for them.
Everything else your perception is bring up is just your own delusions.
From this video, we can clearly see by Romneys own words he is both.
And in this context fraz, This is why Romney wants to distance himself from bain, it has cost him other elections. Not that he'd ever be man enough to admit it. If he was man enough to admit "Ya I ran bain and shut down factories so I could make a lot of money" I'd actually respect him more than I do.
So evidently you're a liar as well, being that you can't produce a vid showing Romney stating he left Bain to avoid being accused of killing pensions.
Apparently you would be unfit to hold office due to your lies.
d-usa wrote: So if everybody pays into the services, then everybody has a small part in your success. But when Obama says that it is offensive?
It's more how he said it. like I said earlier:
it was needlessly insulting. He wasn’t just calling on successful people to pay more in tax but was being dismissive of their accomplishments.
The piece before that, he said (that's, why the overall context is worse):
I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
Lemme get this straight... he's always struck by people who take credit for their own successes? Obviously, every successful outcome in life, and every failed one, arises from a combination of internal and external factors. But it's the tonewhen he said this, amused by the very idea of people taking credit for their achievements, was very off-putting.
It's like... we're not supposed to be proud of something we've achieved in our lives. Really!??!
d-usa wrote: So if everybody pays into the services, then everybody has a small part in your success. But when Obama says that it is offensive?
It's more how he said it. like I said earlier:
it was needlessly insulting. He wasn’t just calling on successful people to pay more in tax but was being dismissive of their accomplishments.
The piece before that, he said (that's, why the overall context is worse):
I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
Lemme get this straight... he's always struck by people who take credit for their own successes? Obviously, every successful outcome in life, and every failed one, arises from a combination of internal and external factors. But it's the tonewhen he said this, amused by the very idea of people taking credit for their achievements, was very off-putting.
It's like... we're not supposed to be proud of something we've achieved in our lives. Really!??!
That speech was JARRING.
So all taxpayers should be very offended because our contributions are being dismissed by the Republican National Convention. Everywhere I look there are signs saying "WE BUILD IT" as if they didn't have any help.
It's like... we're not supposed to be proud of something we've achieved in our lives. Really!??!
Pride goes before destruction.
While I don't literally believe that being proud of an achievement is going to lead to destruction, it can definitely lead to philosophical blindness and vulnerability to certain types of rhetoric.
Its very, very easy to appeal to pride in order to convince people of something.
It's like... we're not supposed to be proud of something we've achieved in our lives. Really!??!
Pride goes before destruction.
While I don't literally believe that being proud of an achievement is going to lead to destruction, it can definitely lead to philosophical blindness and vulnerability to certain types of rhetoric.
Its very, very easy to appeal to pride in order to convince people of something.
Yeah... I'd except that. And I also know that my dislike for the guy is influencing my opinions.
d-usa wrote: So if everybody pays into the services, then everybody has a small part in your success. But when Obama says that it is offensive?
It's more how he said it. like I said earlier:
it was needlessly insulting. He wasn’t just calling on successful people to pay more in tax but was being dismissive of their accomplishments.
The piece before that, he said (that's, why the overall context is worse):
I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
Lemme get this straight... he's always struck by people who take credit for their own successes? Obviously, every successful outcome in life, and every failed one, arises from a combination of internal and external factors. But it's the tonewhen he said this, amused by the very idea of people taking credit for their achievements, was very off-putting.
It's like... we're not supposed to be proud of something we've achieved in our lives. Really!??!
That speech was JARRING.
Hate to say it boss, but convincing people to change political ideologies is about like convincing people to change their religion. It will only give you gray hairs. Over time they will change their ideology or they won't.
It's like... we're not supposed to be proud of something we've achieved in our lives. Really!??!
Pride goes before destruction.
While I don't literally believe that being proud of an achievement is going to lead to destruction, it can definitely lead to philosophical blindness and vulnerability to certain types of rhetoric.
Its very, very easy to appeal to pride in order to convince people of something.
I tend to find that really really fething irritating and usually dense people crow on about pride all the time.
Patriotism and Pride.. two P's I can happily live without people ever displaying. Strange for a military man I know, but Its always been the puniest and stupidest soldiers that seemed to need to vocally gob off about Pride and Patriotism all the time.. the rest of us just seemed to shut the feth up and.. you know.. do stuff.
Frazzled wrote: So evidently you're a liar as well, being that you can't produce a vid showing Romney stating he left Bain to avoid being accused of killing pensions.
Apparently you would be unfit to hold office due to your lies.
Maybe I should run, I'll run as a republican in Texas so you'd believe everything I say.
So tell me fraz, how can he leave a job in 1999, keep getting paid for 2 years as the CEO and sole shareholder, then spin off other companies if he stopped having anything to do with it? What possible reasons could he have for trying to distance himself from his own company? Yet claim it's his business experience that will help get america out of its recession.
Isn't it amazing how every other president/CEO gets blamed/credit for all his companies success or failures, Except romney. He's in charge yet has no responsibility in anything that happened under his leadership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital At the time of its bankruptcy it reported $553.9 million in debts against $395.2 in assets. Bain reported $58.4 million in profits, the employee pension fund had a liability of $44 million.
Isn't it great how you can bankrupt a company, make a huge profit, and leave the pension liability for the taxpayers. Ah the american dream, All the rewards and none of the blame.
Maybe we should just believe everyone who says they're innocent, until they decide to say they're guilty of something.
It's like... we're not supposed to be proud of something we've achieved in our lives. Really!??!
Pride goes before destruction.
While I don't literally believe that being proud of an achievement is going to lead to destruction, it can definitely lead to philosophical blindness and vulnerability to certain types of rhetoric.
Its very, very easy to appeal to pride in order to convince people of something.
I tend to find that really really fething irritating and usually dense people crow on about pride all the time.
Patriotism and Pride.. two P's I can happily live without people ever displaying. Strange for a military man I know, but Its always been the puniest and stupidest soldiers that seemed to need to vocally gob off about Pride and Patriotism all the time.. the rest of us just seemed to shut the feth up and.. you know.. do stuff.
Excessive Pride and Patriotism does get grating...
I just don't think it's "wrong" to have pride in what you do and who you are...
But... I'm a heathen as PRIDE is one of the 7 deadly sins!
Anyone else getting bored with people lying on here, and then just getting snarky and posting pictures of dogs whenever they're cornered by their own lies and stupidity?
Pride is accomplishment after the action. You can only take PRIDE when you retire and hand it off to your kids to run. Then have mild heart attacks when they bolo occasionaly.
Hhhmmmm maybe I need to start pointing out some of Obama lies........
TheHammer wrote: Anyone else getting bored with people lying on here, and then just getting snarky and posting pictures of dogs whenever they're cornered by their own lies and stupidity?
=(
TBH, Frazzled is my favorite poster that I consistently and strongly disagree with.
Jihadin wrote: Pride is accomplishment after the action. You can only take PRIDE when you retire and hand it off to your kids to run. Then have mild heart attacks when they bolo occasionaly.
Hhhmmmm maybe I need to start pointing out some of Obama lies........
Sure lets see what you've got, And lets have full context as well. None of this taking 4 words out of context and claiming he lied.
Jihadin wrote: Pride is accomplishment after the action. You can only take PRIDE when you retire and hand it off to your kids to run. Then have mild heart attacks when they bolo occasionaly.
Hhhmmmm maybe I need to start pointing out some of Obama lies........
Sure lets see what you've got, And lets have full context as well. None of this taking 4 words out of context and claiming he lied.
I would like to know Obama's personal opinion on the War on Drugs, marijuana specifically.
TheHammer wrote: Anyone else getting bored with people lying on here, and then just getting snarky and posting pictures of dogs whenever they're cornered by their own lies and stupidity?
=(
Frazzled hasnt posted any pictures of his dogs to my awareness, now I would warn you against personal attacks on people, yes politics is a tense field, but keep it professional.
P.S. The legion of Dachshunds is watching you. (Yes I am a fellow dachshund owner too )
Maybe I should run, I'll run as a republican in Texas so you'd believe everything I say.
***Bad idea. I haven’t voted for a Republican for federal office from Texas in my lifetime.
So tell me fraz, how can he leave a job in 1999, keep getting paid for 2 years as the CEO and sole shareholder,
***ownership dividends.
then spin off other companies if he stopped having anything to do with it?
***Not sure what you mean by “then spin off other companies.”
What possible reasons could he have for trying to distance himself from his own company?
***At least four reasons for no longer being part of “your own company” 1) Run the Olympics. 2) Run a charity; 3) Get into politics. If the political positions you are running for are full time you can’t run a company now can you. 4) You’re steenking rich and want to retire. Oh and of course 5) Your wiener dogs told you too.
Yet claim it's his business experience that will help get america out of its recession.
***There’s no negative connotation, except maybe in your head.
Isn't it amazing how every other president/CEO gets blamed/credit for all his companies success or failures, Except romney.
***You seem to be doing a lot of blaming. Bain itself however is anything but a failure for its investors. I’m sure the various funds have done awesome.
****He's in charge yet has no responsibility in anything that happened under his leadership.
Only if he was CEO or Chairman in the context .
In another possibly uncomfortable revelation for U.S. officials who say bin Laden's body was treated with dignity before being given a full Muslim burial at sea, the author reveals that in the cramped helicopter flight out of the compound, one of the SEALs called "Walt" was sitting on bin Laden's chest as the body lay at the author's feet in the middle of the cabin.
TheHammer wrote: Anyone else getting bored with people lying on here, and then just getting snarky and posting pictures of dogs whenever they're cornered by their own lies and stupidity?
=(
TBH, Frazzled is my favorite poster that I consistently and strongly disagree with.
I disagree with Frazz on many things, I also agree with him on many things.
One of the tricks to talking to him is knowing when he is serious, and when he just likes to pretend we are a bunch of cats chasing his Wiener Legion controlled laser pointer while he posts.
Frazzled is our resident crazy uncle who might just have Tourettes, but everybody thinks he is funny to hang out with.
In another possibly uncomfortable revelation for U.S. officials who say bin Laden's body was treated with dignity before being given a full Muslim burial at sea, the author reveals that in the cramped helicopter flight out of the compound, one of the SEALs called "Walt" was sitting on bin Laden's chest as the body lay at the author's feet in the middle of the cabin.
Obama said full dignity and respect did he not.
Well if the guy who is profiting on the killing of one of our greatest enemies without clearing his book with the pentagon and making sure nothing he wrote endangers anybody else while also trying to debut it on the anniversary of 9/11 in a "happy everybody died day, now give me money to read how we killed the bastard" kinda way said that is wasn't true, then it probably wasn't.
TheHammer wrote: Anyone else getting bored with people lying on here, and then just getting snarky and posting pictures of dogs whenever they're cornered by their own lies and stupidity?
=(
TBH, Frazzled is my favorite poster that I consistently and strongly disagree with.
I disagree with Frazz on many things, I also agree with him on many things.
One of the tricks to talking to him is knowing when he is serious, and when he just likes to pretend we are a bunch of cats chasing his Wiener Legion controlled laser pointer while he posts.
Frazzled is our resident crazy uncle who might just have Tourettes, but everybody thinks he is funny to hang out with.
hence my signature line (if I still have it). And I quote: -"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
To quote the professor: Good News Everyone! The world's meanest canine, your hero and mine, TBone the Terror lives another day. We're doubling his seizure medicine and that should take care of his spells. of course this means he'll be so high he's the only dog that can see colors. And what glorious colors they are DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE.
TheHammer wrote: Anyone else getting bored with people lying on here, and then just getting snarky and posting pictures of dogs whenever they're cornered by their own lies and stupidity?
=(
Frazzled hasnt posted any pictures of his dogs to my awareness, now I would warn you against personal attacks on people, yes politics is a tense field, but keep it professional.
P.S. The legion of Dachshunds is watching you. (Yes I am a fellow dachshund owner too )
VE ARE VIENIES VE ARE LEGION!
(my avatar is a younger TBone actually. I have to figure this here highfallutin phone download to laptop for some new pics).
Well if the guy who is profiting on the killing of one of our greatest enemies without clearing his book with the pentagon and making sure nothing he wrote endangers anybody else while also trying to debut it on the anniversary of 9/11 in a "happy everybody died day, now give me money to read how we killed the bastard" kinda way said that is wasn't true, then it probably wasn't.
So the author is wrong for the book since its profit. So is it wrong for Obama to run with it himself. Question though did Obama lie about "Full dignity and respect"
SOCOM operators have helmet cams running during operations. Its mention where OBL was literally double tapped. You are not allowed to double tap or mercy kill anyone. Its prosecution under UCMJ for murder. If Obama was indeed at the helm of watching the operation then he witness a murder.
Well if the guy who is profiting on the killing of one of our greatest enemies without clearing his book with the pentagon and making sure nothing he wrote endangers anybody else while also trying to debut it on the anniversary of 9/11 in a "happy everybody died day, now give me money to read how we killed the bastard" kinda way said that is wasn't true, then it probably wasn't.
So the author is wrong for the book since its profit. So is it wrong for Obama to run with it himself. Question though did Obama lie about "Full dignity and respect"
SOCOM operators have helmet cams running during operations. Its mention where OBL was literally double tapped. You are not allowed to double tap or mercy kill anyone. Its prosecution under UCMJ for murder. If Obama was indeed at the helm of watching the operation then he witness a murder.
Frazzled wrote: Maybe I should run, I'll run as a republican in Texas so you'd believe everything I say.
***Bad idea. I haven’t voted for a Republican for federal office from Texas in my lifetime.
So tell me fraz, how can he leave a job in 1999, keep getting paid for 2 years as the CEO and sole shareholder,
***ownership dividends.
then spin off other companies if he stopped having anything to do with it?
***Not sure what you mean by “then spin off other companies.”
What possible reasons could he have for trying to distance himself from his own company?
***At least four reasons for no longer being part of “your own company” 1) Run the Olympics. 2) Run a charity; 3) Get into politics. If the political positions you are running for are full time you can’t run a company now can you. 4) You’re steenking rich and want to retire. Oh and of course 5) Your wiener dogs told you too.
Yet claim it's his business experience that will help get america out of its recession.
***There’s no negative connotation, except maybe in your head.
Isn't it amazing how every other president/CEO gets blamed/credit for all his companies success or failures, Except romney.
***You seem to be doing a lot of blaming. Bain itself however is anything but a failure for its investors. I’m sure the various funds have done awesome.
****He's in charge yet has no responsibility in anything that happened under his leadership.
Only if he was CEO or Chairman in the context .
Now there is some super cognitive dissidence.
***ownership dividends.
he got paid for being an executive.
***Not sure what you mean by “then spin off other companies.”
watch the video's I linked
His dogs told him to retire in 1999 yet:
"In November of that year, his signature appears on documents connected to a deal with Stericycle.
In January 2000, he signed paperwork for a deal with VMM Merger Corp.
His John Hancock appears on ChipPAC Inc. documents in February 2001.
That same month, Romney's signature can be found on paperwork connected to a Bain deal with Integrated Circuit Systems Inc.
In February 2000, he signed documents related to a deal with Wesley Jessen Visioncare Inc."
So which is it fraz, did he lie to the SEC, or is he lying to us?
Well if the guy who is profiting on the killing of one of our greatest enemies without clearing his book with the pentagon and making sure nothing he wrote endangers anybody else while also trying to debut it on the anniversary of 9/11 in a "happy everybody died day, now give me money to read how we killed the bastard" kinda way said that is wasn't true, then it probably wasn't.
So the author is wrong for the book since its profit. So is it wrong for Obama to run with it himself. Question though did Obama lie about "Full dignity and respect"
SOCOM operators have helmet cams running during operations. Its mention where OBL was literally double tapped. You are not allowed to double tap or mercy kill anyone. Its prosecution under UCMJ for murder. If Obama was indeed at the helm of watching the operation then he witness a murder.
Do you have any facts to back that up? You always double tap.
Well if the guy who is profiting on the killing of one of our greatest enemies without clearing his book with the pentagon and making sure nothing he wrote endangers anybody else while also trying to debut it on the anniversary of 9/11 in a "happy everybody died day, now give me money to read how we killed the bastard" kinda way said that is wasn't true, then it probably wasn't.
So the author is wrong for the book since its profit. So is it wrong for Obama to run with it himself. Question though did Obama lie about "Full dignity and respect"
SOCOM operators have helmet cams running during operations. Its mention where OBL was literally double tapped. You are not allowed to double tap or mercy kill anyone. Its prosecution under UCMJ for murder. If Obama was indeed at the helm of watching the operation then he witness a murder.
I simply question the accuracy of a book that has gone through this much trouble to avoid being vetted by the military and is banking on emotion to make money.
A guy that was planning on debuting his book on 9/11 wouldn't have much problems with writing stuff like "we sat on the corpse" of the guy who attacked us on this day in history. A guy that admits in his book that none of them liked Obama wouldn't have much problems writing stuff that would hurt him. A guy that doesn't submit his book to the Pentagon wouldn't have much problems writing stuff that isn't true.
There are so many things about the book that just seem shady, but I am supposed to take him at face value? Of course people that don't like Obama are just going to eat it up.
I've a feeling I've seen more combat then you. You never double tap nor mercy kill. There can be no significant pause between shots at the same target.
edit
There are so many things about the book that just seem shady, but I am supposed to take him at face value? Of course people that don't like Obama are just going to eat it up.
Same as Romney not paying taxes for ten yrs. If there was doubt on operation on the legality of the kill should Obama can Obama run with it? Was OBL body treated with dignity and respect? Yes or no.
***ownership dividends.
he got paid for being an executive.
You said as CEO and owner. A CEO can be paid in cash, dividends or other interest. An owner can receive distributions. I’m just going with the information you noted.
***Not sure what you mean by “then spin off other companies.”
watch the video's I linked
No I didn’t say any such thing. I was just responding to your hypothetical. I could care less when he quit or retired from Bain.
His dogs told him to retire in 1999 yet:
Now I am jealous. My wiener dogs said that I was special and that they only talk to me.
"In November of that year, his signature appears on documents connected to a deal with Stericycle.
In January 2000, he signed paperwork for a deal with VMM Merger Corp.
His John Hancock appears on ChipPAC Inc. documents in February 2001.
That same month, Romney's signature can be found on paperwork connected to a Bain deal with Integrated Circuit Systems Inc.
In February 2000, he signed documents related to a deal with Wesley Jessen Visioncare Inc."
So which is it fraz, did he lie to the SEC, or is he lying to us?
Oh Noes!!! He signed something!!!! Oh Noes!
You can sign a lot of things about a lot of reasons. I can’t be arsed to find out nor did I claim anything about it. Its utterly not relevant to me.
I don’t care too much about Romney. He’s a competent version of Obama to me. This election is about whether current management should keep their job.
Jihadin wrote: I've a feeling I've seen more combat then you. You never double tap nor mercy kill. There can be no significant pause between shots at the same target.
Most of my family is in the service (or retired)... double-tab or mercy killing willland you in the brig. They're very serious about that.
TheHammer wrote: Anyone else getting bored with people lying on here, and then just getting snarky and posting pictures of dogs whenever they're cornered by their own lies and stupidity?
=(
I'm more tired of people calling people liars and stupid, since both violate rule #1.
TheHammer wrote: Anyone else getting bored with people lying on here, and then just getting snarky and posting pictures of dogs whenever they're cornered by their own lies and stupidity?
=(
I'm more tired of people calling people liars and stupid, since both violate rule #1.
Agreed, MajorTom finds out I would not be particularly surprised if he swings the Banhammer around.
Jihadin wrote: I've a feeling I've seen more combat then you. You never double tap nor mercy kill. There can be no significant pause between shots at the same target.
A double tap or controlled pair is a shooting technique where two well-aimed shots are fired at the same target with very little time in between shots. Instruction and practice of the double-tap improves overall accuracy as shooters often do not have the gun fully extended on the first shot meaning the second of a double-tap is usually the better.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about here?
Still no links for any sort of facts yet? are we just to take your word for it, when you seem to be confusing double tap, for mercy kills.
But do you seriously put more weight into a book written by a guy that didn't follow the proper channels, that is also trying to profit from emotions by releasing a book on 9/11 in which he talks about killing the guy who orchestrated 9/11 and sitting on his corpse than the POTUS?
So tell me fraz, how can he leave a job in 1999, keep getting paid for 2 years as the CEO and sole shareholder,
***ownership dividends.
It could very well have been tax reasons.
Further, being a CEO/Chairman/GrandHighPoobah is a hell of a lot different from being a forklift driver or a chemical engineer.
His contract could have included a guaranteed X amount over X years (despite leaving early), or had some of the money deferred (paid later) for tax reasons and/or to keep the company's overhead lower by spreading out the payment.
There are a number of reason why a CEO can leave a job and still get paid 2 years later.
So tell me fraz, how can he leave a job in 1999, keep getting paid for 2 years as the CEO and sole shareholder,
***ownership dividends.
It could very well have been tax reasons.
Further, being a CEO/Chairman/GrandHighPoobah is a hell of a lot different from being a forklift driver or a chemical engineer.
His contract could have included a guaranteed X amount over X years (despite leaving early), or had some of the money deferred (paid later) for tax reasons and/or to keep the company's overhead lower by spreading out the payment.
There are a number of reason why a CEO can leave a job and still get paid 2 years later.
Maybe he did such a terrible job they paid him not to come back?
You miss where there's a significant pause between shots I mention? If I take a shooter down with one or two rounds I cannot shoot the target again unless the target reaches for his weapon then I'm authorized to shoot again. If I shoot the target down and pause and shoot the target again I'm up for murder. Thats a double tap. Thats a murder.
Jihadin wrote: You miss where there's a significant pause between shots I mention? If I take a shooter down with one or two rounds I cannot shoot the target again unless the target reaches for his weapon then I'm authorized to shoot again. If I shoot the target down and pause and shoot the target again I'm up for murder. Thats a double tap. Thats a murder.
Yup^^^^^ couldn't said it better.
Could it be like this?
Double tap, aka - Hammer: Sight picture, two shots, back to the sights
Controlled pair - Sight picture, shot, sight picture, shot, back to the sights, exceuted at speed.
Wouldn't the controlled pair be Murder?
In either case, the military makes specific distinction on this and you can be charged with Murder.
Did this change in the 90s? Or, has it always been like this?
Jihadin wrote: You miss where there's a significant pause between shots I mention? If I take a shooter down with one or two rounds I cannot shoot the target again unless the target reaches for his weapon then I'm authorized to shoot again. If I shoot the target down and pause and shoot the target again I'm up for murder. Thats a double tap. Thats a murder.
That would be murder, that is not a double tap. If you pause it is not a double tap.
because according to:
"Lesson 18. Close Quarters Combat". United States Army. Retrieved 6 June 2011.
For multiple targets, each target should receive a double tap."
They latched on the term double tap. You have the official version and a unofficial version. They've yet to considered if Obama possibly lied about OBL body being treated with respect and dignity
Jihadin wrote: I see no ones taking up that Obama possible "lie" about "Dignity and respect"
I did take it up.
I mentioned that I would not be surprised if a guy that sells a book on 9/11 wouldn't be inclined to include parts that amount to "we were not that nice to the corpse of the bastard that attacked us" on 9/11.
But again, do you actually believe these two things or are you just making a rhetorical point about accusations without much evidence backing them up?
Jihadin wrote: So did Obama lie about OBL body being treated with respect and dignity?
Well that would really depend on how you define dignity and respect. By obamas definitions OBL probably was treated with dignity and respect. That is really a subjective question with no definitive answer.
The answer is yes he lied. OBL body was not treated with dignity or respect. The Seal was sitting on the body. If the helmet cams were still transmitting which they do till completion of the mission then he saw the Seal sitting on the body.
Jihadin wrote: The answer is yes he lied. OBL body was not treated with dignity or respect. The Seal was sitting on the body. If the helmet cams were still transmitting which they do till completion of the mission then he saw the Seal sitting on the body.
Only according to you, because only sith lords deal in absolutes. I'm sure others would say that was more dignity and respect than he deserved. If that's the best case you got, then I'll say it, Obama has not lied. You're best example is a speculative case, who's answer really depends on who you ask. Why don't you start a poll on this one and see how the numbers come out. It's not a definitive example of if he lied or not.
Jihadin wrote: The answer is yes he lied. OBL body was not treated with dignity or respect. The Seal was sitting on the body. If the helmet cams were still transmitting which they do till completion of the mission then he saw the Seal sitting on the body.
So you do trust a book written by a guy who didn't go through the pentagon and who is using the anniversary of 9/11 to make a profit more than the POTUS and everybody else involved in the mission.
Only according to you, because only sith lords deal in absolutes. I'm sure others would say that was more dignity and respect than he deserved. If that's the best case you got, then I'll say it, Obama has not lied. You're best example is a speculative case, who's answer really depends on who you ask. Why don't you start a poll on this one and see how the numbers come out. It's not a definitive example of if he lied or not.
Only to me and the US military. You do not in anyway shape or form mess with a enemy body. Obama was in the operation center watching and pretty much saw it. So to me he lied. As you say Romney lies because he will not release 10 yrs of tax returns.
edit
So you do trust a book written by a guy who didn't go through the pentagon and who is using the anniversary of 9/11 to make a profit more than the POTUS and everybody else involved in the mission.
I mention earlier I doubt I get the book becuase Penguin is not one of my brands to read. I also mention that my wife will probaly get it for due to one of my old unit involve in the operation was 160th. Yes I was a NightStalker for three years
Only according to you, because only sith lords deal in absolutes. I'm sure others would say that was more dignity and respect than he deserved. If that's the best case you got, then I'll say it, Obama has not lied. You're best example is a speculative case, who's answer really depends on who you ask. Why don't you start a poll on this one and see how the numbers come out. It's not a definitive example of if he lied or not.
Only to me and the US military. You do not in anyway shape or form mess with a enemy body. Obama was in the operation center watching and pretty much saw it. So to me he lied. As you say Romney lies because he will not release 10 yrs of tax returns.
Where is this video you keep claiming exists? where's the proof? I only have your word on what happened to the body, which I'm finding more and more reasons to doubt your word.
and no that's not what I said, please actually read what I type If you'd care to discuss what I actually said.
Video? I didn't mentioning anything about a video? I mention your video that you posted twice on the same thing. As for not messing with enemy bodies its a General Order for all combat theater and operations. Do Not Mess With the Bodies of the Dead.
Where is this video you keep claiming exists? where's the proof? I only have your word on what happened to the body, which I'm finding more and more reasons to doubt your word.
and no that's not what I said, please actually read what I type If you'd care to discuss what I actually said.
Proof is in the book thats about to come out. Notice no one in the White House is saying anything about this. Didn't I mention on the other thread that this is going to get ugly for a bunch of people? No one going to contradict him from his team. Nor can Obama run on the OBL kill anymore.
@sirlynchmob... I don't think we can play this game as both sides can play this all-day-long.
By the throne... they're politicians!
Here's one making rounds:
Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008 during the compaign at the plant.
1. On February 13, 2008 Obama said in Janesville : “I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.”
2. In June 2008 GM announced that the Janesville plant would stop production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs in 2010 or sooner.
3. In October 2008 Obama doubled down on his promise to keep Janesville plant open: “As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”
4. In December 2008 GM idled production of GM SUVs at the Janesville plant. Medium-duty truck assembly continued.
5. In April 2009, four months after Obama was inaugurated, GM idled production of medium-duty trucks.
6. In September 2011, more than two years after Obama was inaugurated, GM reiterates that Janesville plant is on “stand by status.” Auto industry observer David Cole, tells the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel it would be premature to say the Janesville plant will never reopen.
6. Today the GM facility in Janesville still has not been retooled “so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs,” as Obama promised.
Using the same logic you've expoused that Romney lied... then Obama lied.
Note: I don't think it's fair to peg this one on Obama...
Jihadin wrote: Video? I didn't mentioning anything about a video? I mention your video that you posted twice on the same thing. As for not messing with enemy bodies its a General Order for all combat theater and operations. Do Not Mess With the Bodies of the Dead.
Where is this video you keep claiming exists? where's the proof? I only have your word on what happened to the body, which I'm finding more and more reasons to doubt your word.
and no that's not what I said, please actually read what I type If you'd care to discuss what I actually said.
Proof is in the book thats about to come out. Notice no one in the White House is saying anything about this. Didn't I mention on the other thread that this is going to get ugly for a bunch of people? No one going to contradict him from his team. Nor can Obama run on the OBL kill anymore.
So you think Obama is lying based on hearsay and speculation? Interesting.
Jihadin wrote: So did Obama lie about OBL body being treated with respect and dignity?
He'd have been foolish not to. Osama Bin Laden isn't exactly popular in the Muslim world, but publically announcing that his body had been mis-treated by servicemen probably wouldn't be the brightest idea.
Or, maybe just maybe it didn't go up the chain of command that there was any disrespect shown to the body because it was in no one's best interest for it to get out.
So you think Obama is lying based on hearsay and speculation? Interesting.
No more then you on Romney
Nope, Romney's been trapped, he's either lied to the government or he's lying to us. No one is debating that fact. There are countless sources to back this up showing Romney saying many different things about his position at bain. Go watch the videos I've cited, see I have video's and documents which paint Romeny clearly as lying beyond any reasonable doubt. You just have some book you hope gets published soon that you think makes a case that obama may or may not have seen something or other.
Or, maybe just maybe it didn't go up the chain of command that there was any disrespect shown to the body because it was in no one's best interest for it to get out.
He was in the ops room. Everyone has helmet cams running during operations at the beginning to the end. Its SOP. Why I said its going to get ugly for a whole lot of people. The Double Tap killing of OBL and the sitting on his body so far. Yes the Hawk was crowded due to one having a hard landing or a wire strike. You do not sit on a body regardless.
@sirlynchmob
Has Romney been prosecuted by the IRS for tax evasion? Has the IRS started an investigation on ten yrs of tax evasion?
Romney took a paid leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 when he became the head of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics.[64][65] The decision caused turmoil at Bain Capital, with a power struggle ensuing.[66] Some partners left and founded the Audax Group and Golden Gate Capital.[33] Other partners threatened to leave, and there was a prospect of eight-figure lawsuits being filed.[66] Romney was worried that the firm might be destroyed, but the crisis ebbed.[66]
Romney was not involved in day-to-day operations of the firm after starting the Olympics position.[67][68] Those were handled by a management committee, consisting of five of the fourteen remaining active partners with the firm.[33] However, according to some interviews and press releases during 1999, Romney said he was keeping a part-time function at Bain.[69][33]
During his leave of absence, Romney continued to be listed in filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission[70] as "sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President".[71][72] The SEC filings reflected the legal reality[73] and the ownership interest in the Bain Capital management company.[32][74] In practice, former Bain partners have stated that Romney's attention was mostly occupied by his Olympics position.[75][73] He did stay in regular contact with his partners, and traveled to meet with them several times, signing corporate and legal documents and paying attention to his own interests within the firm and to his departure negotiations.[74] Bain Capital Fund VI in 1998 was the last one Romney was involved in; investors were worried that with Romney gone, the firm would have trouble raising money for Bain Capital Fund VII in 2000, but in practice the $2.5 billion was raised without much trouble.[33] His former partners have said that Romney had no role in assessing other new investments after February 1999,[33] nor was he involved in directing the company’s investment funds.[32] Discussions over the final terms of Romney's departure dragged on during this time, with Romney negotiating for the best deal he could get and his continuing position as CEO and sole shareholder giving him the leverage to do so.[73][33]
Although he had left open the possibility of returning to Bain after the Olympics, Romney made his crossover to politics permanent with an announcement in August 2001.[64] His separation from the firm was finalized in early 2002.[33][76] Romney negotiated a ten-year retirement agreement with Bain Capital[33] that allowed him to receive a passive profit share and interest as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities, including buyout and Bain Capital investment funds, in exchange for his ownership in the management company.[77][78] Because the private equity business continued to thrive, this deal would bring him millions of dollars in annual income.[78] Romney was the first and last CEO of Bain Capital; since his departure became final, it has continued to be run by management committee.[33]
Bain Capital itself, and especially its actions and investments during its first 15 years, came under press scrutiny as the result of Romney's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.[30][79][80] Bain Capital made as few comments about those actions and investments as possible, as even by the standards of the private equity industry it was known for its commitment towards secrecy about itself and privacy for its clients and investors.[80] Romney's leave of absence and the level of activity he had within the firm during the 1999-2002 period also garnered attention.[81][82][83][84][85][86]
As long as attack ads are legal, that's not gonna happen, as generally speaking people believe they work, and there's good evidence to believe they can and do work.
Or, maybe just maybe it didn't go up the chain of command that there was any disrespect shown to the body because it was in no one's best interest for it to get out.
He was in the ops room. Everyone has helmet cams running during operations at the beginning to the end. Its SOP. Why I said its going to get ugly for a whole lot of people. The Double Tap killing of OBL and the sitting on his body so far. Yes the Hawk was crowded due to one having a hard landing or a wire strike. You do not sit on a body regardless.
@sirlynchmob
Has Romney been prosecuted by the IRS for tax evasion? Has the IRS started an investigation on ten yrs of tax evasion?
Romney took a paid leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 when he became the head of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics.[64][65] The decision caused turmoil at Bain Capital, with a power struggle ensuing.[66] Some partners left and founded the Audax Group and Golden Gate Capital.[33] Other partners threatened to leave, and there was a prospect of eight-figure lawsuits being filed.[66] Romney was worried that the firm might be destroyed, but the crisis ebbed.[66]
Romney was not involved in day-to-day operations of the firm after starting the Olympics position.[67][68] Those were handled by a management committee, consisting of five of the fourteen remaining active partners with the firm.[33] However, according to some interviews and press releases during 1999, Romney said he was keeping a part-time function at Bain.[69][33]
During his leave of absence, Romney continued to be listed in filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission[70] as "sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President".[71][72] The SEC filings reflected the legal reality[73] and the ownership interest in the Bain Capital management company.[32][74] In practice, former Bain partners have stated that Romney's attention was mostly occupied by his Olympics position.[75][73] He did stay in regular contact with his partners, and traveled to meet with them several times, signing corporate and legal documents and paying attention to his own interests within the firm and to his departure negotiations.[74] Bain Capital Fund VI in 1998 was the last one Romney was involved in; investors were worried that with Romney gone, the firm would have trouble raising money for Bain Capital Fund VII in 2000, but in practice the $2.5 billion was raised without much trouble.[33] His former partners have said that Romney had no role in assessing other new investments after February 1999,[33] nor was he involved in directing the company’s investment funds.[32] Discussions over the final terms of Romney's departure dragged on during this time, with Romney negotiating for the best deal he could get and his continuing position as CEO and sole shareholder giving him the leverage to do so.[73][33]
Although he had left open the possibility of returning to Bain after the Olympics, Romney made his crossover to politics permanent with an announcement in August 2001.[64] His separation from the firm was finalized in early 2002.[33][76] Romney negotiated a ten-year retirement agreement with Bain Capital[33] that allowed him to receive a passive profit share and interest as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities, including buyout and Bain Capital investment funds, in exchange for his ownership in the management company.[77][78] Because the private equity business continued to thrive, this deal would bring him millions of dollars in annual income.[78] Romney was the first and last CEO of Bain Capital; since his departure became final, it has continued to be run by management committee.[33]
Bain Capital itself, and especially its actions and investments during its first 15 years, came under press scrutiny as the result of Romney's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns.[30][79][80] Bain Capital made as few comments about those actions and investments as possible, as even by the standards of the private equity industry it was known for its commitment towards secrecy about itself and privacy for its clients and investors.[80] Romney's leave of absence and the level of activity he had within the firm during the 1999-2002 period also garnered attention.[81][82][83][84][85][86]
So all this is a lie?
Quite being so deliberatly obtuse and go actually read what I've written. Once you're ready to address my actual claims we can continue.
Funny. I actually had a mormon in my unit awhile back. He was non practicing. I also had a "amish" in my unit. He was funny and a viscious Clan mech player.
?
Sounds like somebody hates Freedom. 
