- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Voters: "Mr Romney, what is your plan?"
Mr. Romney: "I'll tell you after I am elected."
Moreover, private equity entities like Bain don't build jack sh**.
Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?
Why put that in quotes when it's obviously some silliness you fabricated?
You were probably inspired by a real incident however, Nancy Pelosi, leader of the most corrupt group of politicians in recent memory.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=nanc...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
That is clearly untrue.
You couldn't be more wrong. They buy things that already exists. They are a far cry from Henry Ford or Steve Jobs who actually created products that created industries.
Because the US is controlled by the Feds. They control the media and election machine. They select the politicians to control the government. That's why even Clinton did a good job in his last term, Bush won the election. What the Feds needed was not a good economy, they need war and the Patriot Act. Several month after his election, 911 happened which satisfied what the Feds needed.
This time, Obama will give the Feds something Romney can't give. So you saw Romney is under the fire of media despite the life of Americans is worse off after four years reign of Obama.
They were on their way to non existence and Bain Capital saved them.
Isn't that a good thing?
Romney also saved the Winter Olympics in Utah, also a good thing.
Mitt Romney's crippling Olympics neurosis - CBS NewsYou've heard this voice before. It is the voice of a comically self-satisfied man basking in the glory of achieving something very few mortals would be capable of -- in this case, running a successful Olympic Games. Indeed, Romney would have you believe that he didn't just make the Salt Lake City games a success -- he saved the Olympics themselves. He grabbed ahold of an Olympic torch extinguished by international scandal and relit the flame. That is the unembarrassed message of Romney's 2004 book "Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games." Romney's Olympic triumph is what made the difference (at least in Romney's mind) between his failed 1994 Senate campaign and his successful 2002 gubernatorial bid, which put him on the path to the White House. It is, today, a significant part of Romney's argument for electing him president.
It's also, as I've written before ("No Medal For You,") a pretty weak case. Romney did a perfectly fine job running the Olympics, but so have lots of other people. When reporting my earlier column I asked Lisa Delpy Neirotti, who teaches sport management at George Washington University, whether she could name a single U.S.-based Winter or Summer Olympics -- going back three decades -- that wasn't managed well. She could not. But Romney is deeply invested in the idea that it takes superhuman skills to save an Olympic Games from the disaster and international humiliation to which it naturally inclines. The idea that it can be done reasonably well even by a past-its-prime power like Britain is too much for Romney to bear. And I'm afraid he let it show at a very inopportune moment.
They were on their way to non existence and Bain Capital saved them.
Isn't that a good thing?
Romney also saved the Winter Olympics in Utah, also a good thing.
Romney did a fine job running the Olympics but the "savng" part is a Romney myth. What is true is that if he had failed in Utah he would have been the only one to do so.
.I have no idea who you mean by they
However, my point was they don't create anything. Entrepeneurs create careers and industries. Equity companies like Bain buy things created by others shuffle some numbers around to bump up the sale price or sell off the assets.
I'm not much of a sports fan so I can't say how well they went even if they went fantastic BFD. Moreover, weren't those olympics the ones that had some issues with kickbacks\bribery.
Moreover, weren't those olympics the ones that had some issues with kickbacks\bribery.
.
Then you are unfamiliar with the Romney record of success. You should familiarize with the record of both candidates if you are going to vote in the US elections.
Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All they do is "shuffle numbers around"? You apparently have no idea what entrepreneurs do or what people do when they try to save companies.
You might want to think about this. Barrack Obama took billions of US tax dollars in what is called 'crony capitalism", put it into failed companies, and the taxpayers lost. He also put tax dollars into GM and is claiming that he saved thousands of jobs. Why should Mitt Romney not get credit for saving many more jobs with private money while Leftists will give BHO credit for saving GM with taxpayer dollars? Even Barrack Obama himself is not foolish enough to say that Romney didn't create jobs, nor does anyone share your abbreviated definition of what an entrepreneur really is either.
Yes, they had kickbacks and bribery, just as in what's going on in this Obama administration, but Romney cleaned it up. You should hope he can repeat this job for the United States and his record suggests that he can.
I've had a front row seat on three occassions for what private equity companies do. I was an outside consultant for accounting and IT on all three occassions so I got to see up close up personal how they work.
Yes Obama is really s***** but that doesn't make Romney good.
Bush was s***** and that didn't make Obama good. I hate the donkeys and elephants. Both parties serve people who create and build nothing which has made us what we are today. A country of service providers.
I made a clear distinction in my previous post between entrepeneurs and what companies like Bain do.
This is pretty simple...
Obama can relate with people. Romney cannot.
Obama has likable feel about him. Romney does not.
Obama is guy you wanna have a beer with. Romney is not.
It is what it is....people vote for who they like...not who they think will be the best leader.
Then that old saw about people getting the government they deserve will be played out. Too bad though that those who recognize the problem may be defeated by those who have no idea how wealth is created or how finances work.
I wouldn't vote for either one of those bastards. I'm not a fan of starting wars or letting bankers get away with laundering, fraud and theft. The courtry has been sliding for over thirty years. If you look at the numbers the only way the "middle class" has been able to maintain a decent lifestyle is through debt. Who the hell cares I guess let's have an election about rhetoric. Romney is going to get the jihadi's. Obama is going to get the fat cats.
Government is not a business. For example, private prisons want high inmate counts while good government only wants to jail people if they represent a danger to society. Meshing those two motivations will lead to nasty outcomes. If you don't believe me read about Mississippi's private prison industry to get an idea of how those things can go bad. Moreover, private equity entities like Bain don't build jack sh**. The next big thing will come from some smart person with the nerve to pursue their idea not someone looking for distressed companies.
It really is a weird polling atmosphere. People say they are worse off but have confidence in the economy when "worse off" is generally more a reflection of consumer confidence than reality. Traditionally most people are worse off compared to the national averages than they think they are already. To me, the numbers reflect more their lack of optimism for the future for themselves.
The stock market is at a 5 year high, the nations economy is growing instead of shrinking like much of the free world and the conusmer confidence numbers are the highest since Feb.
I'de say that Americans have made up their minds not to change horses in the middle of a recovery. Smart people, those Americans
Funny thing is that we're screwed with either candidate
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?