The Difference between Obama and Romney Supporters

[P@triot]

If someone asks you what the main difference is between the Obama
supporters and Romney supporters, just tell them that Romney supporters sign their checks on the front, and Obama supporters sign their checks on the back.

I noticed your list for Romney's "accomplishments" don't include AmPad, GS Steel, Damon Medical or any of the other companies that went under on his watch.


But hey, keep showing contempt for working people. You keep doing that... and it will come back to bite you in November.

Except that you the ONLY "work" you people do is WORKING THE SYSTEM. You're just a bunch of parasites. And that is what we have contempt for......

 

[GoneBezerk]

Obama supporters want politicians to help only "them," whereas Romney supporters want politicans to help the country.

That liberal leach bitch bragging about her Obama phone and saying "Romney sucks" to give her political opinion is the typical Obamabot.

I went to a Romney rally with Bobby Jindall the speaker and some black fatass Obamabot started yelling shit from across the street. Later after the rally I walked back to my car and there he was arguing with some old white guy about yelling obscene shit at the crowd. I told him to his face that he was an Obamabot and he was dumbfounded about the meaning being the typical twat.

He talked shit from across the street but not when I got in his fatass face.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the difference is that we have our checks electronically deposited, while those Romney supporters are stuck back in the early 20th century and still using paper checks.

The world has moved on from 1910. Get on board or get left behind.

I'm sure we're all very glad to hear that you're enjoying your shiny new EBT card, and all the time it saves you, not having to wait for the mail carrier to deliver your welfare check and Food Stamp packets anymore.

 

[dblack]

Obama supporters want politicians to help only "them," whereas Romney supporters want politicans to help the country.

True enough. As far as it goes. Though I suspect both would claim they want government to help "the country". They just differ on the how.

Liberals want to level the playing field to make sure everyone has access to the good life. Conservatives want to reward the industrious and punish the slackers. Libertarians want government to protect our freedom to live our lives the way we choose, and otherwise stay out of the way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How do the guys who sign the front of checks, get the money? By signing the backs of checks, from their customers.

How out-of-touch with capitalism and productivity do you have to be to miss a point THIS badly?

 

[Sherry]

In general, Obama supporters are more trusting of government to make more and more decisions on behalf on the citizenry, and do not fear people becoming more and more dependent on government. In general, Romney supporters do not trust the government to do what is the best interest of the people, and fear people growing to depend on and become slaves to government assistance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The differences are primarily how they want to see themselves. Neither seems to notice that the sales pitch they fall for has precious little to do with how their leaders govern once they have power. And they don't seem to care.

Keep in mind that if you choose to stay home, congratulating yourself on how sophisticated and perceptive you are in your universal, kneejerk hatred of all political candidates, rather than going out and voting, I will be the first to encourage you to do exactly that.

That having been said, would it be at all possible to see an actual, specific indication of how this is true of the individual candidates, rather than being treated to an incredibly boring and irrelevant generic dismissal?

I'm not personally aware of any indications that Mitt Romney has been inclined the past to champion policy decisions during a campaign, only to do exactly the opposite in office. And while I give Obama preciously little credit for anything, I will say that he at least governed exactly as I expected him to, based on his campaign promises. It was his estimations of the effect his policies would have that was dishonest, not the promises of what the policies themselves would be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I noticed your list for Romney's "accomplishments" don't include AmPad, GS Steel, Damon Medical or any of the other companies that went under on his watch.


But hey, keep showing contempt for working people. You keep doing that... and it will come back to bite you in November.

Not every company that needs help can get the help....sometimes they're too far under to make it right again. Bain couldn't keep every single business open that they tried to help. There were many they help and the company still went under because of poor management. Or they were so far gone to begin with that NOBODY could have helped them.

So what's your take on all the bankruptcy's listed under Obama?? He's spending OUR tax dollars on failing companies without our permission. Bain spent their own money on saving companies. Who knows more about business in your eyes? What companies has Obama saved?

You guys are going to be so whinny on Election night when you see the country voting for the "business" guy, because they know Obama can't give us what we need. He's a proven FAILURE.

Why does a company like Bain even exist? They really don't bring much to the table. What they do is get public and private money together to do hostile takeovers of real companies that have a track record and assets. And they do this for one reason..and one reason only..profit. In the animal kingdom they would be something like a Wasp..or a predatory parasite.

Bain didn't build anything. Bain didn't innovate in a way that was beneficial. They leverage, they outsource and in some cases, they destroy.

Tell the people whose jobs didn't disappear because Bain stepped in and turned their failing employer around how Bain "doesn't bring much to the table". Tell the people who got jobs when companies invested in by Bain expanded into new markets that Bain has no reason to exist. And tell your implications that doing business for a profit is somehow evil to someone who's as big a dipshit as you are.

You liberals aren't setting the parameters for this discussion, no matter how hard you try to pretend you are. Not only is no one buying your "the only moral businesses are manufacturers" line of cock-and-bull, we're also not buying the even bigger line of bullshit that liberals like ANY business that exists without government intervention.

Oh, and "parasites"? Talk to me about parasites when you're not voting for the Food Stamp President.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not every company that needs help can get the help....sometimes they're too far under to make it right again. Bain couldn't keep every single business open that they tried to help. There were many they help and the company still went under because of poor management. Or they were so far gone to begin with that NOBODY could have helped them.

You're missing a key piece...Bain never came in to "help". Bain exists to harvest profit out of a company. Romney himself said so.

Bain Capital is an investment partnership which was formed to invest in startup companies and ongoing companies, then to take an active hand in managing them and hopefully, five to eight years later, to harvest them at a significant profit.
~Willard Romney

YOU are missing a key piece: good intentions are the only thing that matters to leftists. To the rest of the world, results matter more. Bain DID step in to help those companies, and in most cases, they succeeded in helping them. Does it make a difference that they helped because that's how they make a profit, rather than doing it solely from the altruistic goodness of their hearts? Only to you.

It's just sad that you think someone stating the obvious - that businesses exist to make a profit - is some sort of "admission" and a "Gotcha!" moment.

 

[Lakhota]

The Difference between Obama and Romney Supporters

Brains and education?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So the liberals on this thread would have preferred that 100% of those companies that were rescued by Bain Capital closed and all those workers that DIDN'T lose their jobs had hit the unemployment lines? You people are amazing.
Mitt Romney and Bain Capital--What liberals still do not grasp | Washington Times Communities

Bain isn't in the business of rescuing companies. Lord! They aren't called "vultures" for nothing...although I think that's a misnomer. Vultures are actually good for the environment. They are more like Vampire capitalists. They suck the lifeblood out of a company, leaving the empty shell.

Remember Richard Gere in Pretty Woman? He was a Vampire Capitalist...until he fucked Julia Roberts and decided to "build things".

Bain IS in the business of rescuing companies.

Let me say that again, so you really get the point. Bain is in the BUSINESS of rescuing companies. Not the CHARITY of it, but the BUSINESS.

As for the rest of your meaningless emotional buzzword diatribe, all I can say is that you merely reveal how very little you understand about anything outside of being a wage drone.

 

[Lakhota]

Mitt Romney and Bain Capital | Romney-Gekko 2012

 

[Lakhota]

Romney: Bain Builds Up, Then Harvests Companies - ABC News

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EsxNYXW5i8&feature=player_embedded]Mitt Romney on Bain's plan to buy and "harvest" companies - YouTube[/ame]

 

[uscitizen]

Then there are those of us who support neither romney nor Obama.
We are really different, we think and do not parrot partisan lines.

 

[dblack]

I'm not personally aware of any indications that Mitt Romney has been inclined the past to champion policy decisions during a campaign, only to do exactly the opposite in office. And while I give Obama preciously little credit for anything, I will say that he at least governed exactly as I expected him to, based on his campaign promises. It was his estimations of the effect his policies would have that was dishonest, not the promises of what the policies themselves would be.

Obama campaigned against the individual mandate, against the Patriot Act, against the warfare state - yet did a 180 on all of these (and more) once in office. Romney has said so many contradictory things in his campaign it will be impossible for him to not violate his campaign promises. And I simply can't believe he'll make any substantial changes to PPACA - especially not the core goal - to force us all into accepting permanent indebtedness to corporate health insurance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the difference is that we have our checks electronically deposited, while those Romney supporters are stuck back in the early 20th century and still using paper checks.

The world has moved on from 1910. Get on board or get left behind.

Obama supporters got in line to get the Iphone5 while Romney supporters are still using smoke signals.

Wow. I didn't realize Obamaphones were iPhones 5's. Guess I shouldn't be surprised, though. He's never minded wasting taxpayer money on anything else.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Difference between Obama and Romney Supporters

Brains and education?

Oh, don't be so critical of yourself . . . the rest of us will be happy to do it for you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not personally aware of any indications that Mitt Romney has been inclined the past to champion policy decisions during a campaign, only to do exactly the opposite in office. And while I give Obama preciously little credit for anything, I will say that he at least governed exactly as I expected him to, based on his campaign promises. It was his estimations of the effect his policies would have that was dishonest, not the promises of what the policies themselves would be.

Obama campaigned against the individual mandate, against the Patriot Act, against the warfare state - yet did a 180 on all of these (and more) once in office. Romney has said so many contradictory things in his campaign it will be impossible for him to not violate his campaign promises. And I simply can't believe he'll make any substantial changes to PPACA - especially not the core goal - to force us all into accepting permanent indebtedness to corporate health insurance.

Well, I appreciate you making the effort to point out specifics with Mr. Obama, but then you ruined it by reverting back to vagueries in Mr. Romney's case. And at that, they're vagueries about THIS campaign, and what you do and don't expect him to do in the future, rather than specifics about ACTUAL governance in opposition to campaigning. It's not as though Mr. Romney doesn't have a political record to examine, so what's the problem?

It was a nice half-try, though.

 

[dblack]

... in Mr. Romney's case. And at that, they're vagueries about THIS campaign, and what you do and don't expect him to do in the future, rather than specifics about ACTUAL governance in opposition to campaigning. It's not as though Mr. Romney doesn't have a political record to examine, so what's the problem?

It was a nice half-try, though.

As far as his campaign is concerned, vagueries are all Romney has offered up. His governance was thoroughly corporatist. He's the only political figure in the nation who has done MORE to advance the policy of mandatory insurance than Obama, and we're supposed to vote for him as the leader of the movement to repeal it??? Are you fucking kidding me?

His entire campaign is a sad, ironic and cruel joke - designed to protect the status quo at all costs.

 

[Politico]

I noticed your list for Romney's "accomplishments" don't include AmPad, GS Steel, Damon Medical or any of the other companies that went under on his watch.

Bain made plenty of money on all those companies. That's what they are in business for.