More 'Evolving': Obama Won't Return Bain Capital Donations...

[Sallow]

.

Obama's trying to walk one helluva fine line here, saying that private equity is fine but the practices of one guy were not. Holy crap, is he sure he really wants to do this? Especially since so many Dems are cozy with Wall Street contributors?

If only money didn't play such a role in politics. Ah, to dream...

.

Actually no.

What he's saying is that Romney didn't create jobs, quite the opposite..jobs were lost due the the actions of his company. Romney's trying to state that what he learned at Bain should be applied to government.

Which would be disastrous in the minds of some.

Of course..some people think Bush was a good President.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but Romney was working for Bain, not for the companies they invested in. The question is not how the companies that were in trouble when purchased by Bain did, but how did Bain do?

Regarding Bush, he lost sight of what his job was. His job was us, as in U.S., and he thought his job was to grow freedom abroad. A fundamental misunderstanding of mission.

We can all admire his idealism in this and still understand that his goals were inappropriate and unrealistic based on a misunderstanding of the world. It's obvious now that the stone age world view of the Muslim cursed Middle Easterners will not allow democratic rule. Those poor bastards are just plain screwed.

Anyway, Romney knows his stuff and Obama does not. Obama's recent claim that under his guidance our debt has risen more slowly than under any president for 60 years is just plain dishonest and deceiving.

This falls under the general heading of "Stop pissing on my hat. I know it ain't raining."

Bottom line is Romney knows how to make money. He's good at it..because he's ruthless. He doesn't give a whit about anyone that lost jobs and/or benefits. That's the way venture capital works. During Obama's administration, over 4 million jobs were created in the private sector and many were saved by the stimulus package when "tax cutting" governors like Jindal and Perry used the money to plug up holes in their state budgets.

Romney wouldn't have done that.

He doesn't care. Simple as that.

 

[Seawytch]

Because the people who would be responsible for taking money out of politics are the same people who benefit from that money.

You get them to fix that and I'm buying you a beer.

.

Well, I'm one of those happy clappy liberals that believes Americans can do anything we put our minds to. If enough of us want to do something about it, something will get done. The real problem is that we, Americans, are too easily distracted by celebrities eating bugs on TV...

But ewwwww, eating bugs is so GROSS, ewwwwww, how can you not LOVE that!



Not sure how this can be done. Politicians spending so much of their time in office raising money, making decisions based on who paid them off the most, their sheep defending the money, etc., etc.

Can we do anything we set our minds to? Yeah. But dang, when it comes to cleaning up our politics, I just don't know how we get from here to there.

.

Overturning Citizens United would be a good first step. Voting only for candidates that don't take corporate money is another. There ARE lawmakers out there that want to change the way politics are bought...they are just few and far between. We start by voting more of them in.

Politicians should be working for my vote, not for lobbyist money. If not for lobbyists, we would have the public option that most Americans wanted.

 

[code1211]

.

Money is not speech.

Money is money.

Speech is speech.

.

That is simply not true. The entire concept of free speech is based on the notion that the speech can be heard. Given that, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech. Shouting fire in an empty theatre is not even covered under the law.

If it requires money for speech to be heard and heard speech is what the freedom guarantees, then money and speech are inseparable and both are covered under the first amendment when linked.

 

[SniperFire]

.

Money is not speech.

Money is money.

Speech is speech.

.

That is simply not true. The entire concept of free speech is based on the notion that the speech can be heard. Given that, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech. Shouting fir in an empty theatre is not even covered under the law.

If it requires money for speech to be heard and heard speech is what the freedom guarantees, then money and speech are inseparable and both are covered under the first amendment when linked.

mac1958 is just letting his inner-totalitarian show a little.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Money is not speech.

Money is money.

Speech is speech.

.

That is simply not true. The entire concept of free speech is based on the notion that the speech can be heard. Given that, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech. Shouting fir in an empty theatre is not even covered under the law.

If it requires money for speech to be heard and heard speech is what the freedom guarantees, then money and speech are inseparable and both are covered under the first amendment when linked.

Code, I'm a First Amendment purist. I think it's our most important right. I've been shot down in here many times for saying that all voices need to be heard, no matter what, always, period. If we lose that right, it's over, and that's one of the reasons I'm so strongly against Political Correctness, the American Left's very effective method of controlling a given issue. And yes, even "fire" in a crowded theater. I don't care.

But money is not speech. It never has been, it never will be, especially with the advent of the internet, which gets everyone's speech out immediately for free.

This notion that money is speech is a distortion of the First Amendment.


.

 

[SniperFire]

But money is not speech. It never has been, it never will be, especially with the advent of the internet, which gets everyone's speech out immediately for free.

This notion that money is speech is a distortion of the First Amendment.


.

The New York Times Corporation relies on MONEY in the form of advertising and subscription sponsors to get their speech out. In fact, the Supremes referenced such parallel in the Citizens United ruling.

You are in favor of picking the winners and losers in free speech based on deciding who gets to use money to make it happen.

Sorry about yer luck, commie.

 

[code1211]

Actually no.

What he's saying is that Romney didn't create jobs, quite the opposite..jobs were lost due the the actions of his company. Romney's trying to state that what he learned at Bain should be applied to government.

Which would be disastrous in the minds of some.

Of course..some people think Bush was a good President.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but Romney was working for Bain, not for the companies they invested in. The question is not how the companies that were in trouble when purchased by Bain did, but how did Bain do?

Regarding Bush, he lost sight of what his job was. His job was us, as in U.S., and he thought his job was to grow freedom abroad. A fundamental misunderstanding of mission.

We can all admire his idealism in this and still understand that his goals were inappropriate and unrealistic based on a misunderstanding of the world. It's obvious now that the stone age world view of the Muslim cursed Middle Easterners will not allow democratic rule. Those poor bastards are just plain screwed.

Anyway, Romney knows his stuff and Obama does not. Obama's recent claim that under his guidance our debt has risen more slowly than under any president for 60 years is just plain dishonest and deceiving.

This falls under the general heading of "Stop pissing on my hat. I know it ain't raining."

Bottom line is Romney knows how to make money. He's good at it..because he's ruthless. He doesn't give a whit about anyone that lost jobs and/or benefits. That's the way venture capital works. During Obama's administration, over 4 million jobs were created in the private sector and many were saved by the stimulus package when "tax cutting" governors like Jindal and Perry used the money to plug up holes in their state budgets.

Romney wouldn't have done that.

He doesn't care. Simple as that.

With the jobs record you are quoting for Obama, you're picking pepper out of fly poop.

The problems were the result of the burst Real Estate Bubble. The actual measure of the recovery needs to be based on the levels of employment from the period prior to that bubble bursting.

The actual measure needs to compare 2008 to today and we find that we now have 141+ million employed today vs. 145+ million employed then. The actual drop in actual jobs to be held by Americans is more than 3.5 million.

This is not success. I can understand torturing numbers to make a political point, but, seriously, either every single American is failing or the leadership is misguided.

A-1. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years and over, prior years to date

 

[code1211]

.

Money is not speech.

Money is money.

Speech is speech.

.

That is simply not true. The entire concept of free speech is based on the notion that the speech can be heard. Given that, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech. Shouting fir in an empty theatre is not even covered under the law.

If it requires money for speech to be heard and heard speech is what the freedom guarantees, then money and speech are inseparable and both are covered under the first amendment when linked.

Code, I'm a First Amendment purist. I think it's our most important right. I've been shot down in here many times for saying that all voices need to be heard, no matter what, always, period. If we lose that right, it's over, and that's one of the reasons I'm so strongly against Political Correctness, the American Left's very effective method of controlling a given issue. And yes, even "fire" in a crowded theater. I don't care.

But money is not speech. It never has been, it never will be, especially with the advent of the internet, which gets everyone's speech out immediately for free.

This notion that money is speech is a distortion of the First Amendment.


.

I disagree, but that is what free speech is all about. The Founders were providing a protection for Speech, but that protection was really intended to protect Written Speech as much as spoken speech.

As such, the ability to reach a larger audience was the intent. A printing press was a pretty expensive device to own and so rose the caveat that you should never have a fight with a man who purchases ink by the barrel.

Since Gothenburg, Money and Speech have been linked and there is no way to separate the one from the other once they are joined.

 

[SniperFire]

That is simply not true. The entire concept of free speech is based on the notion that the speech can be heard. Given that, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech. Shouting fir in an empty theatre is not even covered under the law.

If it requires money for speech to be heard and heard speech is what the freedom guarantees, then money and speech are inseparable and both are covered under the first amendment when linked.

Code, I'm a First Amendment purist. I think it's our most important right. I've been shot down in here many times for saying that all voices need to be heard, no matter what, always, period. If we lose that right, it's over, and that's one of the reasons I'm so strongly against Political Correctness, the American Left's very effective method of controlling a given issue. And yes, even "fire" in a crowded theater. I don't care.

But money is not speech. It never has been, it never will be, especially with the advent of the internet, which gets everyone's speech out immediately for free.

This notion that money is speech is a distortion of the First Amendment.


.

I disagree, but that is what free speech is all about. The Founders were providing a protection for Speech, but that protection was really intended to protect Written Speech as much as spoken speech.

As such, the ability to reach a larger audience was the intent. A printing press was a pretty expensive device to own and so rose the caveat that you should never have a fight with a man who purchases ink by the barrel.

Since Gothenburg, Money and Speech have been linked and there is no way to separate the one from the other once they are joined.

mac1958 figures if they can control the money that enables speech, then then can control the speech they find to be detestable.

Fortunately, that has been found to be unConstitutional.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Actually no.

What he's saying is that Romney didn't create jobs, quite the opposite.

Ever hear of.... oh, say.... Staples?

Yes, we've all heard of Staples...where you can get an $8 an hour job you can't live off of. Great!

Bain has a history of taking over companies, robbing employees pensions, loading the company up with debt and then cashing out. How about their practice of firing all the employees and then hiring them back with less salary and no benefits? Great company eh?

Good post, I'm sure whenever jobs are created during the Obama administration you're sure to check how high paying those jobs are before you give him credit.

I'm absolutely certain you do that.............................