Obama Superpac Runs "Romney Killed My Wife" Ad

[The Infidel]

 

[thanatos144]

It is all about class warfare with progressives ... It is one of the only ways thy can spread thier communist utopia.

 

[JoeB131]

It would be only natural for people to feel a sense of loss and anger when they lose their job. But nothing Bain did CAUSED that unhappy circumstance. In fact, Bain gave them a last-ditch opportunity to turn it around. People like Joe Soptic should've been grateful for the chance, that is, if they were thinking straight. The fact that he's not, makes it alot easier to understand why GST was ultimately a failed effort.

Guy, your position NOT having worked there, NOT having been a witness to events, NOT knowing details, is that Bane was this wonderful bunch who really, really wanted to help, really.

The people who were there said otherwise.

I say, lock Romney in a room with 12 ex-GS employees. If he can convince them, great. Did I mention we're giving them baseball bats?

 

[Murf76]

It would be only natural for people to feel a sense of loss and anger when they lose their job. But nothing Bain did CAUSED that unhappy circumstance. In fact, Bain gave them a last-ditch opportunity to turn it around. People like Joe Soptic should've been grateful for the chance, that is, if they were thinking straight. The fact that he's not, makes it alot easier to understand why GST was ultimately a failed effort.

Guy, your position NOT having worked there, NOT having been a witness to events, NOT knowing details, is that Bane was this wonderful bunch who really, really wanted to help, really.

The people who were there said otherwise.

I say, lock Romney in a room with 12 ex-GS employees. If he can convince them, great. Did I mention we're giving them baseball bats?

No. What I've clearly said many times is that Bain isn't a social service, but that their 80% success rate is a pretty darn good thing for both investors and for people who get to keep their jobs.

 

[JoeB131]

It would be only natural for people to feel a sense of loss and anger when they lose their job. But nothing Bain did CAUSED that unhappy circumstance. In fact, Bain gave them a last-ditch opportunity to turn it around. People like Joe Soptic should've been grateful for the chance, that is, if they were thinking straight. The fact that he's not, makes it alot easier to understand why GST was ultimately a failed effort.

Guy, your position NOT having worked there, NOT having been a witness to events, NOT knowing details, is that Bane was this wonderful bunch who really, really wanted to help, really.

The people who were there said otherwise.

I say, lock Romney in a room with 12 ex-GS employees. If he can convince them, great. Did I mention we're giving them baseball bats?

No. What I've clearly said many times is that Bain isn't a social service, but that their 80% success rate is a pretty darn good thing for both investors and for people who get to keep their jobs.

again, 80% is relative.

80% of planes making it to their destinatino would really kind of suck.

Would you date a girl with 80% of her teeth. Or who was 80% VD Free?

Bain isn't a social service. It also isn't a good thing for the economy and Mitt Romney is not a good person.

 

[mudwhistle]

Guy, your position NOT having worked there, NOT having been a witness to events, NOT knowing details, is that Bane was this wonderful bunch who really, really wanted to help, really.

The people who were there said otherwise.

I say, lock Romney in a room with 12 ex-GS employees. If he can convince them, great. Did I mention we're giving them baseball bats?

No. What I've clearly said many times is that Bain isn't a social service, but that their 80% success rate is a pretty darn good thing for both investors and for people who get to keep their jobs.

again, 80% is relative.

80% of planes making it to their destinatino would really kind of suck.

Would you date a girl with 80% of her teeth. Or who was 80% VD Free?

Bain isn't a social service. It also isn't a good thing for the economy and Mitt Romney is not a good person.

If I scored 80% of the time I went out looking for trim that's a good percentage.

 

[Murf76]

Guy, your position NOT having worked there, NOT having been a witness to events, NOT knowing details, is that Bane was this wonderful bunch who really, really wanted to help, really.

The people who were there said otherwise.

I say, lock Romney in a room with 12 ex-GS employees. If he can convince them, great. Did I mention we're giving them baseball bats?

No. What I've clearly said many times is that Bain isn't a social service, but that their 80% success rate is a pretty darn good thing for both investors and for people who get to keep their jobs.

again, 80% is relative.

80% of planes making it to their destinatino would really kind of suck.

Would you date a girl with 80% of her teeth. Or who was 80% VD Free?

Bain isn't a social service. It also isn't a good thing for the economy and Mitt Romney is not a good person.

Ugh. We've been over this ground before. It's getting BORING.
The priority is the investors. That's like making it to your destination 100% of the time. The happy byproduct might be that 80% of the time, the trip is pleasant with no turbulence.

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly...

And I expect some ventures to fail. But frankly, what I have a problem with is that they fail because of the decisions they made (Loaded down the company with too much debt while not modernizing facilities) but they still make a killing, the GOvernment has to bail out the pension fund, creditors get only a fraction of what they are owed, workers lose their jobs, but the Bain Assholes made out like bandits.

You get less credit of surviving an accident when you walk out with a bag full of goodies from the other victims.

 

[JoeB131]

Ugh. We've been over this ground before. It's getting BORING.
The priority is the investors. That's like making it to your destination 100% of the time. The happy byproduct might be that 80% of the time, the trip is pleasant with no turbulence.

Right. That's THEIR priority.

That's not MY Priority.

Being a patriot and a veteran, my priority is THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.

This is not good for the country in any way, shape or form.

Now, I'll happily send Romney back to the world of investment, but don't put this lowlife scumbag in charge of my country.

 

[beagle9]

What part of "Bain's responsibility is to INVESTORS" are you having trouble understanding? They didn't OWE anything to the workers of that plant. They could've walked in there, fired the lot of them, torn the place apart brick by brick, and sold it for scrap. And they would have too, if they didn't think there was a possibility of turning it around.

80% is pretty damn good when providing jobs is not the main point of the exercise. It's more like getting a pretty day 80% of the time with no turbulence when you fly, but still arriving safely 100% of the time. The investors are the point. The jobs are a by-product.

I think companies would better serve this nation, if they were owned by compassionate locally owned ownerships again, just as they were in the past, and hopefully they are owned by someone who has worked in his life, and not just played the numbers as these venture capitalist firms or groups are doing in this nation and to this nation, in which is falling in line with other shady deals and goings on in this nation that has got this nation in the bind that it is in today for the most part.

Can't anybody put faces or names to this game, and then embarass them within the nation as they should be if in the wrong, and all in hopes to embarass them also into obivian somehow (make them change their ways from being a predator to more of a real good honest and decent businessman, that to be making and conducting themselves in the proper ways again) ??

These outfits serve their purpose. Because without them, failing companies like GST simply go ahead and fail through their inability to recapitalize on their own. With them, they get one more shot at making good. Bain is not a "predator". The word "predator" assumes that they're just mindlessly hunting for things to kill. They're just investors, looking to make investments for the REAL PEOPLE they represent. Hell, if you've got retirement investments, you don't expect the guys who are managing your money to act like a public social service. You expect them to grow your investments.

Those workers got several more years of paychecks and benefits that they wouldn't have had if the plant had simply closed. They had one more chance at a comeback they wouldn't have had if Bain hadn't come along and seen a little potential in them. How is that a bad thing?

Not a bad thing, but what are they seeing when looking at these companies in which they are aquirring through these investments that they are making ? Are they looking for a quick return and then get out quick (or) are they looking at hanging around a while, otherwise riding the storm in which they had walked into out, and otherwise trying to make good on the investment they felt they had made on an irresistable deal (or) are they looking at what the companies assets can give them on a quick return, otherwise once liquidate those assets, and pay themselves back + a big fat return on their initial investment in the process ? Will they still hang around for the long term afterwards, or is it the norm for them to ? What all is involved in this looking for investments to be found in companies like this or is it like buzzards that begin flying around from a far, once they smell the smell of death in the air, because the original owner has either leveraged the company to far, and has placed it in danger (or) the owner died and a sibling or siblings took over, whom next began looking for investors next to join them, and this in order to keep his or her inheritance from being leveraged to far out there once in the drivers seat (or) rather placed at a very high risk within the company inherited by them, and therefore the company is taking a chance at losing it for them, so they seek out other peoples money to put in front of theirs ? What exactly is going on in all this mess now?

 

[beagle9]

If you want to say, "Bain was great for the people who invested in it", (whom I shall call "douchebags" for short), that's one thing.

Is it good for the rest of the country?

The Douchebags got a lot of money. Goody for them. The workers got screwed. The taxpayers got screwed in that they ended up not only bailing out the pension fund, but to add insult to injury, had to pay their unemployment, their medicaid, etc... until they found new jobs, if they could. The people who held the 500 million dollars in paper got screwed in the bankruptcy.

I think I want a president who cares about the non-douchebags, don't you?

Without the douchebaggery references; thats exactly right. What a good CEO would do is not always what a good President would do; and vice versa. As owner of Bain, the Governor had influence to stop the off-shoring and make other decisions about what HIS company did. Saying that he wasn't involved is a lot like saying the owner of a soccer team isn't responsible for the conduct of his players because he hired a GM and a Manager. If the Owner says that we want to instill a culture of X, Y, and Z, the GM and Manager will get players and coach them to present that culture.

The president IS the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch. So... there's no real perceptible difference in terms of semantics. Not only was Romney NOT working at Bain anymore at the time of the plant closing, having left for the Olympics two years previous, he would have been in no position to do anything about the glut of cheap, imported steel that GST was having to compete with in 1997 and onward.

Hmmm... who was president then? Yeah, Bill Clinton. Weirdly, we don't see Joe Soptic doing ads about how Bill Clinton screwed him, do we?

Good point as it all leads back to Nafta, now doesn't it in the end ?

This is where the nation began it's fall from within, and had since created all these buzzards who began flying around and cleaing it all up for a quick profit, so I guess the buzzrards got real big and fat, and no one likes a big fat lazy buzzard, especially one that burps real loud afterwards...LOL

 

[Murf76]

I think companies would better serve this nation, if they were owned by compassionate locally owned ownerships again, just as they were in the past, and hopefully they are owned by someone who has worked in his life, and not just played the numbers as these venture capitalist firms or groups are doing in this nation and to this nation, in which is falling in line with other shady deals and goings on in this nation that has got this nation in the bind that it is in today for the most part.

Can't anybody put faces or names to this game, and then embarass them within the nation as they should be if in the wrong, and all in hopes to embarass them also into obivian somehow (make them change their ways from being a predator to more of a real good honest and decent businessman, that to be making and conducting themselves in the proper ways again) ??

These outfits serve their purpose. Because without them, failing companies like GST simply go ahead and fail through their inability to recapitalize on their own. With them, they get one more shot at making good. Bain is not a "predator". The word "predator" assumes that they're just mindlessly hunting for things to kill. They're just investors, looking to make investments for the REAL PEOPLE they represent. Hell, if you've got retirement investments, you don't expect the guys who are managing your money to act like a public social service. You expect them to grow your investments.

Those workers got several more years of paychecks and benefits that they wouldn't have had if the plant had simply closed. They had one more chance at a comeback they wouldn't have had if Bain hadn't come along and seen a little potential in them. How is that a bad thing?

Not a bad thing, but what are they seeing when looking at these companies in which they are aquirring through these investments that they are making ? Are they looking for a quick return and then get out quick (or) are they looking at hanging around a while, otherwise riding the storm in which they had walked into out, and otherwise trying to make good on the investment they felt they had made on an irresistable deal (or) are they looking at what the companies assets can give them on a quick return, otherwise once liquidate those assets, and pay themselves back + a big fat return on their initial investment in the process ? Will they still hang around for the long term afterwards, or is it the norm for them to ? What all is involved in this looking for investments to be found in companies like this or is it like buzzards that begin flying around from a far, once they smell the smell of death in the air, because the original owner has either leveraged the company to far, and has placed it in danger (or) the owner died and a sibling or siblings took over, whom next began looking for investors next to join them, and this in order to keep his or her inheritance from being leveraged to far out there once in the drivers seat (or) rather placed at a very high risk within the company inherited by them, and therefore the company is taking a chance at losing it for them, so they seek out other peoples money to put in front of theirs ? What exactly is going on in all this mess now?

Bain was with that particular company from 1993 to 2001 as I understand. That's hardly 'getting in and getting out'. You just can't save 'em all. But that's not what companies like Bain are there to do. They're there to make money for their investors. They make MORE money when they can return a company to profitability, so people keeping their jobs who would otherwise have lost them is just a happy by-product. It's as simple as that. Nothing Bain does CREATES the circumstances which initially put these companies in the position of needing to re-capitalize or of being unable to do that on their own or through normal channels.

The bottom line is that this company was no longer profitable, and all efforts by Bain to MAKE it profitable failed. Businesses come and go every day. Joe Soptic isn't some special case who is immune to that.

 

[Murf76]

Ugh. We've been over this ground before. It's getting BORING.
The priority is the investors. That's like making it to your destination 100% of the time. The happy byproduct might be that 80% of the time, the trip is pleasant with no turbulence.

Right. That's THEIR priority.

That's not MY Priority.

Being a patriot and a veteran, my priority is THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.

This is not good for the country in any way, shape or form.

Now, I'll happily send Romney back to the world of investment, but don't put this lowlife scumbag in charge of my country.

So, do you think every company who gets themselves into trouble should get a government bailout?... regardless of whether they have any further potential to return to profitability?

 

[beagle9]

These outfits serve their purpose. Because without them, failing companies like GST simply go ahead and fail through their inability to recapitalize on their own. With them, they get one more shot at making good. Bain is not a "predator". The word "predator" assumes that they're just mindlessly hunting for things to kill. They're just investors, looking to make investments for the REAL PEOPLE they represent. Hell, if you've got retirement investments, you don't expect the guys who are managing your money to act like a public social service. You expect them to grow your investments.

Those workers got several more years of paychecks and benefits that they wouldn't have had if the plant had simply closed. They had one more chance at a comeback they wouldn't have had if Bain hadn't come along and seen a little potential in them. How is that a bad thing?

Not a bad thing, but what are they seeing when looking at these companies in which they are aquirring through these investments that they are making ? Are they looking for a quick return and then get out quick (or) are they looking at hanging around a while, otherwise riding the storm in which they had walked into out, and otherwise trying to make good on the investment they felt they had made on an irresistable deal (or) are they looking at what the companies assets can give them on a quick return, otherwise once liquidate those assets, and pay themselves back + a big fat return on their initial investment in the process ? Will they still hang around for the long term afterwards, or is it the norm for them to ? What all is involved in this looking for investments to be found in companies like this or is it like buzzards that begin flying around from a far, once they smell the smell of death in the air, because the original owner has either leveraged the company to far, and has placed it in danger (or) the owner died and a sibling or siblings took over, whom next began looking for investors next to join them, and this in order to keep his or her inheritance from being leveraged to far out there once in the drivers seat (or) rather placed at a very high risk within the company inherited by them, and therefore the company is taking a chance at losing it for them, so they seek out other peoples money to put in front of theirs ? What exactly is going on in all this mess now?

Bain was with that particular company from 1993 to 2001 as I understand. That's hardly 'getting in and getting out'. You just can't save 'em all. But that's not what companies like Bain are there to do. They're there to make money for their investors. They make MORE money when they can return a company to profitability, so people keeping their jobs who would otherwise have lost them is just a happy by-product. It's as simple as that. Nothing Bain does CREATES the circumstances which initially put these companies in the position of needing to re-capitalize or of being unable to do that on their own or through normal channels.

The bottom line is that this company was no longer profitable, and all efforts by Bain to MAKE it profitable failed. Businesses come and go every day. Joe Soptic isn't some special case who is immune to that.

An answer for red (and) an answer for blue as highlighted above, is written below in the same color codes.

How long does it take to liquidate a company and it's assets carefully, if that company had been in business for 105 years ?

In a sea of companies that has been struck hard by Nafta, and then the offshoring of companies by the thousands, did it leave here in it's wake a multitude of companies that became sitting ducks, and therefore vulnerable to vultures that begin flying around, learning how to make money off of all of this, and then sweeping up the mess that they had found sitting there in front of them, in which was created by Nafta as a result of ? Many things are created out of situations, but are they good things is what people are trying to get a handle on I guess. Like people say, these companies after Nafta, were probably on their way out eventually after all, so they tried diversifying, bringing in investors and etc. but sometimes to no avail, and this all depending on who or what they were dealing with as found within it all.

 

[beagle9]

Ugh. We've been over this ground before. It's getting BORING.
The priority is the investors. That's like making it to your destination 100% of the time. The happy byproduct might be that 80% of the time, the trip is pleasant with no turbulence.

Right. That's THEIR priority.

That's not MY Priority.

Being a patriot and a veteran, my priority is THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.

This is not good for the country in any way, shape or form.

Now, I'll happily send Romney back to the world of investment, but don't put this lowlife scumbag in charge of my country.

So, do you think every company who gets themselves into trouble should get a government bailout?... regardless of whether they have any further potential to return to profitability?

Are these government bail outs tied to (or) a result of the Nafta agreement 20 or more years down the road now ?

 

[JoeB131]

Ugh. We've been over this ground before. It's getting BORING.
The priority is the investors. That's like making it to your destination 100% of the time. The happy byproduct might be that 80% of the time, the trip is pleasant with no turbulence.

Right. That's THEIR priority.

That's not MY Priority.

Being a patriot and a veteran, my priority is THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.

This is not good for the country in any way, shape or form.

Now, I'll happily send Romney back to the world of investment, but don't put this lowlife scumbag in charge of my country.

So, do you think every company who gets themselves into trouble should get a government bailout?... regardless of whether they have any further potential to return to profitability?

I think we should treat our industries like they are national assets. Which is what every other country- including China - does.

Why do you never hear about the Japanese equivlent of a Romney, a vulture capitalist? Because their societies wouldn't tolerate that sort of thing.

the only trouble GS Steel got into was trusting Bain Capital.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I think we should treat our industries like they are national assets.

Sounds better with a German accent.

 

[JoeB131]

I think we should treat our industries like they are national assets.

Sounds better with a German accent.

Good point. Explains why German brands are considered quality, doesn't it?

Ever notice that when a conservative talks about "liberty", it usually means the ability of rich people to act like douchebags?

 

[thanatos144]

I think we should treat our industries like they are national assets.

Sounds better with a German accent.

Good point. Explains why German brands are considered quality, doesn't it?

Ever notice that when a conservative talks about "liberty", it usually means the ability of rich people to act like douchebags?

What the fuck do you facists even know about liberty??????? It isnt something that is only for the elite you dumbass.

 

[JoeB131]

Sounds better with a German accent.

Good point. Explains why German brands are considered quality, doesn't it?

Ever notice that when a conservative talks about "liberty", it usually means the ability of rich people to act like douchebags?

What the fuck do you facists even know about liberty??????? It isnt something that is only for the elite you dumbass.

Now, you see, that's the thing. How do yo define "liberty".

You guys - and not you, because i doubt you do anything all that important- defend the privilage of the wealthy. That was the point.

Real liberty would be Joe Soptic and a bunch of his boys getting Mitt in a back room with baseball bats and no consequences.

But we don't have that. We have "liberty" that just protects Mitt's right to make a fast buck of their livelihoods.