Republican Implosion: Really? This is serious?

[Truthmatters]

what silliness to claim Obama has not been vetted.

 

[Zander]

In November of 2012, the country will have a choice. They can choose the incompetent dilettante who reads the flowery words input into his teleprompter by others; or they can choose "someone else". They will take "anyone else". When election day comes, all of this campaign rhetoric and heated hyperbole will be forgotten, but Obama's dismal record will still be there. He will not be able to blame Bush or anyone else. He will be soundly defeated and history will record his presidency as amongst the worst in history.

 

[HUGGY]

So now the left criticize Romney for being honest.

This is serious.... seriously funny.

What is seriously funny is that you have "faith" that Americans will elect a Morman vulture capitalist to the white house.

 

[Truthmatters]

In November of 2012, the country will have a choice. They can choose the incompetent dilettante who reads the flowery words input into his teleprompter by others; or they can choose "someone else". They will take "anyone else". When election day comes, all of this campaign rhetoric and heated hyperbole will be forgotten, but Obama's dismal record will still be there. He will not be able to blame Bush or anyone else. He will be soundly defeated and history will record his presidency as amongst the worst in history.

You are insane

 

[Zander]

So now the left criticize Romney for being honest.

This is serious.... seriously funny.

What is seriously funny is that you have "faith" that Americans will elect a Morman vulture capitalist to the white house.

I don't know Huggy......they elected a guy with no executive experience, who attended a racist church, who was friendly with known terrorists, who refused to release his college records, and was involved in shady land deals with a convicted felon......

 

[Zander]

In November of 2012, the country will have a choice. They can choose the incompetent dilettante who reads the flowery words input into his teleprompter by others; or they can choose "someone else". They will take "anyone else". When election day comes, all of this campaign rhetoric and heated hyperbole will be forgotten, but Obama's dismal record will still be there. He will not be able to blame Bush or anyone else. He will be soundly defeated and history will record his presidency as amongst the worst in history.

You are insane

Coming from you, that is a compliment. Thanks.

 

[amrchaos]

So now the left criticize Romney for being honest.

This is serious.... seriously funny.

What is seriously funny is that you have "faith" that Americans will elect a Morman vulture capitalist to the white house.

If what Romney did at Bain was vulture capitalism, then it is not so bad since they can actually help the economy. Bain was an investment firm that sought out companies that they believe they could turn around and make a profit from by saling them after they became profittable.

That approach is a bit on the noble side except when it came to companies that they can not turn around--then to recoup their investment, the company is sheared, parted and sold in small itsy bitsy pieces.

It look easy, but you have to have some serious organizational and managment abilities plus a backbone of steel to invest in floundering companies and turn them around.

And that is why I like Romney! We need some one that can plan ahead and turn our budget woes and finances around. Romney has the clear cut talent for that and I am sure that our main problem with the budget is corruption stemming from both parties. I wonder how dedicated Romney would be to prosecuting some of his comrades in D.C.?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It must be so much easier in your world than in the real one... the one where decades of decisions by our government (all of it, not just one guy - or one side) had unintended consequences, the world where what happens in other countries impacts globally... that kind of shit.

The problem, and it seems to be a common issue among Americans, is that they think the world begins and ends at our borders. It doesn't. What happens around the world impacts on us... and what we do impacts on them. It is not a one way street. Nor is it as easy as 'the Republicans did it' or 'the Democrats did it'... that might scare you but it is, nonetheless, absolutely true.

I'm bored beyond rigid with you (and I mean a generic 'you' for all partisans - left and right) lying to yourselves and the rest of us about the complicity of all our politicians... and ourselves in this mess.

Grow a set of balls and face reality.

In a lower division history course one midterm blue book question was:

Does one man make history or does history make the man?

How would you answer this question (and, of course it was a lower division course, so it should be easy for someone as pretentious as you).

I appreciate that it is tricky to deal with people who are not bound to either party. We tend to view things much more dispassionately than the partisans. I also tend to view things from a broad perspective - because I focus not just on the US, but what happens around the world too. Partisans 'blame' and 'congratulate' one side or the other, not on the facts but on their particular bias.

I pretty much dismiss partisan crap from both sides, which makes me both 'popular' and 'unpopular' - depending on what 'side' I happen to agree with - sometimes I piss off both sides.... because I point out that the facts do not support either position.

If that's how you define 'pretentious', that's fine. I prefer to call it 'realist'... because that's how I roll... I go for logic, and you go for emotional partisanship... you are, in truth, not much better than TruffMocker in the blind partisanship... but you do manage to spell correctly, speak in coherent sentences, and use bigger words than she... but that's not all that impressive.

You've made no effort to answer the question - not that I have any right to ask, which I freely acknowledge - yet the question does not allow for a simple answer. For those who actually think - sorry crusaderfrank, no shoutout to you here - one worthy of contemplation. And in fact it goes to your point that a person in leadership is always bound to what preceded him.

For example Cole was attacked in Oct. 2000; had Clinton sent our troops into a foreign nation - clearly there was more substance to do so then in Aug of 1964 when the Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution - and left office three months later our debates would be much different.

Maybe then Bush would not have been so fired up to cut taxes on the first day of his presidency; and maybe a war based on an actual attack might have been received by the world as legitimate. And maybe ... but why go on. The point is clear, all presidents are bound by what came before; sadly, President Obama followed a complete incompetent.

 

[Intense]

Does one man make history or does history make the man?

When you find yourself in a situation that you Must make a choice and act, does circumstance dictate without reason? It's up to you, isn't it. Isn't it true that not all pas the test? Isn't it true also that there are different levels and degrees to the resolution? We are not all equal in that sense, are we? Does that answer it? ....

Does one man make history or does history make the man?

Both are True. We are not interchangeable, we each matter, we each have value, of one measure or another. Apply that, and you would see some very surprising and diverse results to outcome.

 

[California Girl]

In a lower division history course one midterm blue book question was:

Does one man make history or does history make the man?

How would you answer this question (and, of course it was a lower division course, so it should be easy for someone as pretentious as you).

I appreciate that it is tricky to deal with people who are not bound to either party. We tend to view things much more dispassionately than the partisans. I also tend to view things from a broad perspective - because I focus not just on the US, but what happens around the world too. Partisans 'blame' and 'congratulate' one side or the other, not on the facts but on their particular bias.

I pretty much dismiss partisan crap from both sides, which makes me both 'popular' and 'unpopular' - depending on what 'side' I happen to agree with - sometimes I piss off both sides.... because I point out that the facts do not support either position.

If that's how you define 'pretentious', that's fine. I prefer to call it 'realist'... because that's how I roll... I go for logic, and you go for emotional partisanship... you are, in truth, not much better than TruffMocker in the blind partisanship... but you do manage to spell correctly, speak in coherent sentences, and use bigger words than she... but that's not all that impressive.

You've made no effort to answer the question - not that I have any right to ask, which I freely acknowledge - yet the question does not allow for a simple answer. For those who actually think - sorry crusaderfrank, no shoutout to you here - one worthy of contemplation. And in fact it goes to your point that a person in leadership is always bound to what preceded him.

For example Cole was attacked in Oct. 2000; had Clinton sent our troops into a foreign nation - clearly there was more substance to do so then in Aug of 1964 when the Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution - and left office three months later our debates would be much different.

Maybe then Bush would not have been so fired up to cut taxes on the first day of his presidency; and maybe a war based on an actual attack might have been received by the world as legitimate. And maybe ... but why go on. The point is clear, all presidents are bound by what came before; sadly, President Obama followed a complete incompetent.

I try and stay vaguely on the topic for any thread. I have no interest in long debates with anyone here, least of all a hack.

I have no need to write long winded posts in order to justify my intelligence, I have neither the time, nor the inclination.

Hack away.

 

[The T]

Does one man make history or does history make the man?

When you find yourself in a situation that you Must make a choice and act, does circumstance dictate without reason? It's up to you, isn't it. Isn't it true that not all pas the test? Isn't it true also that there are different levels and degrees to the resolution? We are not all equal in that sense, are we? Does that answer it? ....

Does one man make history or does history make the man?

Both are True. We are not interchangeable, we each matter, we each have value, of one measure or another. Apply that, and you would see some very surprising and diverse results to outcome.

*Individualist*

 

[HUGGY]

So now the left criticize Romney for being honest.

This is serious.... seriously funny.

What is seriously funny is that you have "faith" that Americans will elect a Morman vulture capitalist to the white house.

If what Romney did at Bain was vulture capitalism, then it is not so bad since they can actually help the economy. Bain was an investment firm that sought out companies that they believe they could turn around and make a profit from by saling them after they became profittable.That approach is a bit on the noble side except when it came to companies that they can not turn around--then to recoup their investment, the company is sheared, parted and sold in small itsy bitsy pieces.

It look easy, but you have to have some serious organizational and managment abilities plus a backbone of steel to invest in floundering companies and turn them around.

And that is why I like Romney! We need some one that can plan ahead and turn our budget woes and finances around. Romney has the clear cut talent for that and I am sure that our main problem with the budget is corruption stemming from both parties. I wonder how dedicated Romney would be to prosecuting some of his comrades in D.C.?

"Bain was an investment firm that sought out companies that they believe they could turn around and make a profit from by saling them after they became profittable."

That is conjecture AKA bullshit. Bains only concern was to turn a profit...not to "save" companies. Many companies have holdings, assets and other tools set aside to advance the companies developement and progress. When the operators are only concerned with really saving a company they are willing to sustain some loss knowing that these assets will come in handy down the road as the company becomes profitable. In the case of a "vulture" capitalist they see these assets as gravy and they actually become a liability to the company because it give robbers like Romney all the more reason to dig thier fangs in like a tick and sell the parts(assets) with no regard to the companies original purpose.

The only reason acompany like Bain would "invest" in growth of a company is if they can't make more money dismembering it.

 

[California Girl]

What is seriously funny is that you have "faith" that Americans will elect a Morman vulture capitalist to the white house.

If what Romney did at Bain was vulture capitalism, then it is not so bad since they can actually help the economy. Bain was an investment firm that sought out companies that they believe they could turn around and make a profit from by saling them after they became profittable.That approach is a bit on the noble side except when it came to companies that they can not turn around--then to recoup their investment, the company is sheared, parted and sold in small itsy bitsy pieces.

It look easy, but you have to have some serious organizational and managment abilities plus a backbone of steel to invest in floundering companies and turn them around.

And that is why I like Romney! We need some one that can plan ahead and turn our budget woes and finances around. Romney has the clear cut talent for that and I am sure that our main problem with the budget is corruption stemming from both parties. I wonder how dedicated Romney would be to prosecuting some of his comrades in D.C.?

"Bain was an investment firm that sought out companies that they believe they could turn around and make a profit from by saling them after they became profittable."

That is conjecture AKA bullshit. Bains only concern was to turn a profit...not to "save" companies. Many companies have holdings, assets and other tools set aside to advance the companies developement and progress. When the operators are only concerned with really saving a company they are willing to sustain some loss knowing that these assets will come in handy down the road as the company becomes profitable. In the case of a "vulture" capitalist they see these assets as gravy and they actually become a liability to the company because it give robbers like Romney all the more reason to dig thier fangs in like a tick and sell the parts(assets) with no regard to the companies original purpose.

The only reason acompany like Bain would "invest" in growth of a company is if they can't make more money dismembering it.

Yea, see... that would be true... if it weren't for the fact that it just isn't.

 

[francoHFW]

maybe. How do dupes keep voting for these rich bastids whose policies have been ruining the country and the non rich for years. Mass hypnosis?

 

[Zoom]

With little effort one could just change some names move a D and a R around and say the say thing.

The Democrats are just as screwed up as the Republicans,there isn't any good choices from ether party.

AT one point Cain was winning. Hell at one point Trump was doing well.

Are you seriously saying they are in the same league as Obama? Please put away partisan nonesense and answer that.

 

[Zoom]

If what Romney did at Bain was vulture capitalism, then it is not so bad since they can actually help the economy. Bain was an investment firm that sought out companies that they believe they could turn around and make a profit from by saling them after they became profittable.That approach is a bit on the noble side except when it came to companies that they can not turn around--then to recoup their investment, the company is sheared, parted and sold in small itsy bitsy pieces.

It look easy, but you have to have some serious organizational and managment abilities plus a backbone of steel to invest in floundering companies and turn them around.

And that is why I like Romney! We need some one that can plan ahead and turn our budget woes and finances around. Romney has the clear cut talent for that and I am sure that our main problem with the budget is corruption stemming from both parties. I wonder how dedicated Romney would be to prosecuting some of his comrades in D.C.?

"Bain was an investment firm that sought out companies that they believe they could turn around and make a profit from by saling them after they became profittable."

That is conjecture AKA bullshit. Bains only concern was to turn a profit...not to "save" companies. Many companies have holdings, assets and other tools set aside to advance the companies developement and progress. When the operators are only concerned with really saving a company they are willing to sustain some loss knowing that these assets will come in handy down the road as the company becomes profitable. In the case of a "vulture" capitalist they see these assets as gravy and they actually become a liability to the company because it give robbers like Romney all the more reason to dig thier fangs in like a tick and sell the parts(assets) with no regard to the companies original purpose.

The only reason acompany like Bain would "invest" in growth of a company is if they can't make more money dismembering it.

Yea, see... that would be true... if it weren't for the fact that it just isn't.

"The only reason acompany like Bain would "invest" in growth of a company is if they can't make more money dismembering it."

That is exactly what happened. Exactly.

 

[Sallow]

If what Romney did at Bain was vulture capitalism, then it is not so bad since they can actually help the economy. Bain was an investment firm that sought out companies that they believe they could turn around and make a profit from by saling them after they became profittable.That approach is a bit on the noble side except when it came to companies that they can not turn around--then to recoup their investment, the company is sheared, parted and sold in small itsy bitsy pieces.

It look easy, but you have to have some serious organizational and managment abilities plus a backbone of steel to invest in floundering companies and turn them around.

And that is why I like Romney! We need some one that can plan ahead and turn our budget woes and finances around. Romney has the clear cut talent for that and I am sure that our main problem with the budget is corruption stemming from both parties. I wonder how dedicated Romney would be to prosecuting some of his comrades in D.C.?

"Bain was an investment firm that sought out companies that they believe they could turn around and make a profit from by saling them after they became profittable."

That is conjecture AKA bullshit. Bains only concern was to turn a profit...not to "save" companies. Many companies have holdings, assets and other tools set aside to advance the companies developement and progress. When the operators are only concerned with really saving a company they are willing to sustain some loss knowing that these assets will come in handy down the road as the company becomes profitable. In the case of a "vulture" capitalist they see these assets as gravy and they actually become a liability to the company because it give robbers like Romney all the more reason to dig thier fangs in like a tick and sell the parts(assets) with no regard to the companies original purpose.

The only reason acompany like Bain would "invest" in growth of a company is if they can't make more money dismembering it.

Yea, see... that would be true... if it weren't for the fact that it just isn't.

No actually it is true.

Some companies made it through Bain's dismemberment, some didn't. But employees were worse off in both cases.

 

[Sallow]

This was a great week for Democrats. And they didn't have to lift a finger. Republicans are brawling like pit fighters with gloves made of linen and glass shards.

It's one bloody show..

 

[Intense]

Does one man make history or does history make the man?

When you find yourself in a situation that you Must make a choice and act, does circumstance dictate without reason? It's up to you, isn't it. Isn't it true that not all pas the test? Isn't it true also that there are different levels and degrees to the resolution? We are not all equal in that sense, are we? Does that answer it? ....

Does one man make history or does history make the man?

Both are True. We are not interchangeable, we each matter, we each have value, of one measure or another. Apply that, and you would see some very surprising and diverse results to outcome.

*Individualist*

 

[Intense]

This was a great week for Democrats. And they didn't have to lift a finger. Republicans are brawling like pit fighters with gloves made of linen and glass shards.

It's one bloody show..

We just like the Headlines.