Mitten's record on manufacturing

[Dick Tuck]

Gst Steel was a failing company. Bain took it over and tried to restore it's financial structure. It didn't work. No one could win them all. Gst failed mostly because of the union's chokehold on the company.

GST was not a failing company. It was an undervalued company. Romney and Bain saw a pension fund that they could rape.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remind me again why the government has to fund a private pension fund?

 

[Conservative]

Gst Steel was a failing company. Bain took it over and tried to restore it's financial structure. It didn't work. No one could win them all. Gst failed mostly because of the union's chokehold on the company.

GST was not a failing company. It was an undervalued company. Romney and Bain saw a pension fund that they could rape.

liar.

 

[Conservative]

Look at the date on your article. They did file for bankruptcy in 2001, and the taxpayer had to pony up to pay their underfunded pensions. Romney the corporate welfare queen?

MORON!

ROMNEY WAS NOT with Bain in 2001! He left in 1999.

Sorry asswipe, but Bain was raping the company since they acquired a majority vote, under Romney. He doesn't give a shit about jobs. He cares about how much blood he can suck out of other people.

You continually ignore this post. Most likely because it proves you're a lying sack of shit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/223507-mittens-record-on-manufacturing-2.html#post5280471

 

[Dick Tuck]

Remind me again why the government has to fund a private pension fund?

Because predator capitalists like Romney, rape them.

 

[The T]

Remind me again why the government has to fund a private pension fund?

Because predator capitalists like Romney, rape them.

Telling. Why isn't there a case in Court Tick Duck against Romeny 'RAPING AND PILLAGING" through bain Capital?

Make your case...This is the third time I have asked.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remind me again why the government has to fund a private pension fund?

Because predator capitalists like Romney, rape them.

If the government didn't guarantee to fund them, would that take away Romney incentive to rape them?

 

[Dick Tuck]

MORON!

ROMNEY WAS NOT with Bain in 2001! He left in 1999.

Sorry asswipe, but Bain was raping the company since they acquired a majority vote, under Romney. He doesn't give a shit about jobs. He cares about how much blood he can suck out of other people.

You continually ignore this post. Most likely because it proves you're a lying sack of shit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/223507-mittens-record-on-manufacturing-2.html#post5280471

I didn't ignore it. In fact it confirms that it was a fundamentally sound company. It's still irrelevant, since it doesn't dispute the fact that Romney raped their pension fund, pushed the company to bankruptcy, and got the US taxpayer to fund the promised pensions (but not at the level the workers were promised.)

 

[The T]

Remind me again why the government has to fund a private pension fund?

Because predator capitalists like Romney, rape them.

If the government didn't guarantee to fund them, would that take away Romney incentive to rape them?

Of course...but then investors still would get the short end of the deal from a bankrupt Government...

 

[Dick Tuck]

Remind me again why the government has to fund a private pension fund?

Because predator capitalists like Romney, rape them.

If the government didn't guarantee to fund them, would that take away Romney incentive to rape them?

Not really. It would just mean more of our seniors getting fucked over.

 

[The T]

Sorry asswipe, but Bain was raping the company since they acquired a majority vote, under Romney. He doesn't give a shit about jobs. He cares about how much blood he can suck out of other people.

You continually ignore this post. Most likely because it proves you're a lying sack of shit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/223507-mittens-record-on-manufacturing-2.html#post5280471

I didn't ignore it. In fact it confirms that it was a fundamentally sound company. It's still irrelevant, since it doesn't dispute the fact that Romney raped their pension fund, pushed the company to bankruptcy, and got the US taxpayer to fund the promised pensions (but not at the level the workers were promised.)

WHERE are the Formal charges Tick Duck for the fourth time?

 

[The T]

Because predator capitalists like Romney, rape them.

If the government didn't guarantee to fund them, would that take away Romney incentive to rape them?

Not really. It would just mean more of our seniors getting fucked over.

Do YOU always speak in tired talking points Tick?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Remind me again why the government has to fund a private pension fund?

Because predator capitalists like Romney, rape them.

Telling. Why isn't there a case in Court Tick Duck against Romeny 'RAPING AND PILLAGING" through bain Capital?

Make your case...This is the third time I have asked.

You tell me. It doesn't dispute the fact that Bain underfunded that pension fund, while sucking out of that company every penny they could.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because predator capitalists like Romney, rape them.

If the government didn't guarantee to fund them, would that take away Romney incentive to rape them?

Not really. It would just mean more of our seniors getting fucked over.

Do you know there's a difference between public and private?

 

[Dick Tuck]

If the government didn't guarantee to fund them, would that take away Romney incentive to rape them?

Not really. It would just mean more of our seniors getting fucked over.

Do you know there's a difference between public and private?

Of course I do. What does that have to do with "limited liability" companies fucking over the people who spent 30 years making them money? What does it have to do with Bain sucking money out the pension fund, and forcing the taxpayer to pay the freight. What does it have to do with those people receiving a pension winding up with up to $400 less per month.

 

[Conservative]

If the government didn't guarantee to fund them, would that take away Romney incentive to rape them?

Not really. It would just mean more of our seniors getting fucked over.

Do YOU always speak in tired talking points Tick?

 

[The T]

Not really. It would just mean more of our seniors getting fucked over.

Do you know there's a difference between public and private?

Of course I do. What does that have to do with "limited liability" companies fucking over the people who spent 30 years making them money? What does it have to do with Bain sucking money out the pension fund, and forcing the taxpayer to pay the freight. What does it have to do with those people receiving a pension winding up with up to $400 less per month.

LAW and liability

 

[The T]

Not really. It would just mean more of our seniors getting fucked over.

Do YOU always speak in tired talking points Tick?

 

[Conservative]

Sorry asswipe, but Bain was raping the company since they acquired a majority vote, under Romney. He doesn't give a shit about jobs. He cares about how much blood he can suck out of other people.

You continually ignore this post. Most likely because it proves you're a lying sack of shit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/223507-mittens-record-on-manufacturing-2.html#post5280471

I didn't ignore it. In fact it confirms that it was a fundamentally sound company. It's still irrelevant, since it doesn't dispute the fact that Romney raped their pension fund, pushed the company to bankruptcy, and got the US taxpayer to fund the promised pensions (but not at the level the workers were promised.)

The link I provided was BECAUSE of Bain and Romney, dipshit.

You've not offered anything other than opinion, while myself and others he have offered verifiable facts.

You're a bore.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Do you know there's a difference between public and private?

Of course I do. What does that have to do with "limited liability" companies fucking over the people who spent 30 years making them money? What does it have to do with Bain sucking money out the pension fund, and forcing the taxpayer to pay the freight. What does it have to do with those people receiving a pension winding up with up to $400 less per month.

LAW and liability

Do you dispute the fact that the taxpayer had to pay for the company's failure to provide a pension? That fact ought not be in dispute.