What will those who support Romney do when he loses to Obama?

[California Girl]

I'm 'squealing' because you are lying about what he said. If the meaning was the same, I might cut you some slack on it. But "I like BEING ABLE to fire people" is not the same as "I like to fire people".

I can understand why you are lying - because you have an irrational fear of Romney. I dislike the lies that you spout thinking no one will notice. Smart people notice. To constantly repeat your lie makes you look ridiculous. Not that I care that you make yourself look ridiculous but you are a liar.

There is no difference between the two statements as far as I am concerned.

I don't know anyone who likes to fire people, unless they are some kind of sick fuck who enjoys the misery of others. I've had to fire people. Never found it an enjoyable thing. I've actually found firing people being worse than being fired myself.

To hear someone say he "likes to be able to fire people" kind of shows a sadistic streak. A lack of sensitivity.

Now, he could have said, "I like to have the ability to change providers if they aren't providing good service", he wouldn't have an issue.

But saying "I like to be able to fire people" shows a meanness of spirit.

Which is everything I've come to expect- from Mormons.

So you prefer not to be able to fire anyone... not even the provider who is committing fraud and stealing your money?

No wonder you're an idiot.

I agree with Romney - I like being able to fire someone. Do I like to do it? No. But I certainly like being able to. But then, I am a rational, intelligent adult.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Congratulate him and watch him fuck things up for another 4-years. Just look at what will be happening in the next 4-years:

1. Medicare will be bankrupt
2. Hospitals will go bankrupt
3. The 30,000,000 freeloaders w/o health insurance will be expecting free medical care
4. The US currency will be downgraded again, which means no more borrowing
5. DC gridlock continues, with the GOP expected to pick-up both Senate and House seats
6. Probably another major economic dip when the EU crashes
7. Thats a quick look at what awaits in the next term...

Ah, yes......those same horror-scenarios you folks predicted, during.....



Yeah......it's gonna be a real tragedy.....watching those Bush Tax-Cuts die.....and, returning to the.....

.....CLINTON-RATE$!!!!!

I was surprised when Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts.​

That was the only way Republicans were willing to extend unemployment-insurance.....not (exactly) a big surprise to political-vets.​

 

[JoeB131]

First of all taking the "I like to fire people" comment totally out of context to try and defame Romney is a sleazy tactic, Joe. If you don't like the guy then rip him for something substantive and not that silly shit.

No sleazier than slamming Bush-41 on "No New Taxes" when we were facing complete economic meltdown if we didn't. No sleazier than blaming Michael Dukakis for Willie HOrton. No sleazier than "Swiftboating" Kerry. No sleazier than springing a last minute old DUI charge on Bush-43.

Sorry, man, like it or not, politics is not beanbag. Romney said it. it was a stupid thing to say, and Obama will cream his with it in November. And you think the liberal MSM is going to set the record straight? Fat chance on that, buddy.

As for the Republicans putting Wall Street in front of Main Street? That's such a load of crap. The issue in 2012 is whether we are going to return to fiscal sanity in Washington or continue deluding ourselves that we can keep on spending the way we are. This isn't about putting Billionaires ahead of working folks. It's about making smart choices. When even a liberal Keynesian economist like Christina Romer is warning us not to raise taxes on ANYONE in a weak economy, then why are we still having this discussion? WE SHOULD NOT RAISE TAXES UNTIL THE ECONOMY IS STRONG!!! Why is this such a hard concept for so many of you people to understand? Obama and the Democrats are running on "tax the rich" because it's a populist message that they think will get them reelected. Well, I hate to throw cold water on the progressives that are all a twitter with how well that message is polling but at some point the electorate is going to realize that it was all just a big con job and they are going to be pissed that they were misled. It might happen next Fall...it might take a year after that...but sooner or later that bill IS going to come due.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich and we had 8 years of sustained growth. I personally am against a tax increase until we've squeezed every ounce of efficiency out of the Federal Government. BUt inevitably, it's going to have to happen. We owe too much money.

Of course, Obama hitting on the issue of taxes on the rich are going to resonate a lot more the longer Romney refuses to release his returns. You don't think there's a reason why Obama hit on the "Buffet Rule" early? Because it resonates with people that they are paying a larger percentage of their earnings than Billionaires do because they can't access all the credits and shelters and dodges. My guess, he's already seen Romney's returns, and if Romney doesn't release them voluntarily, someone is going to "leak" them to the media. In about October.

 

[JoeB131]

So you prefer not to be able to fire anyone... not even the provider who is committing fraud and stealing your money?

No wonder you're an idiot.

I agree with Romney - I like being able to fire someone. Do I like to do it? No. But I certainly like being able to. But then, I am a rational, intelligent adult.

He didn't say, "I like to be able to fire people who are stealing from me and committing fraud". He said "I like to be able to fire people who are providing me service". In fact, Fraud and Stealing were no where in his speech.

My preference would be that if you fire someone, you'd better have a darned good reason for doing it. If it's because there has been a downturn, you should offer that person a job back WHEN things recover. Which is what we used to have when workers had more rights. If there is actual malfeasence (which was the case with the two folks I had to fire back when I was a supervisor in the 1990's) you'd better be able to document that you were in the right.

Incidently, last job I was at, I was fired not because of my performance (my reviews for six years were exemplary, even after a reorganization put me in a job that wasn't my speciality) but because I ran up a lot of medical bills in 2007. My lawyer told me I had a great case to sue, but I declined to do so. Also, I was able to land a new job within two weeks.

No, I don't want to see what you have with the Teacher's unions, where it is impossible to fire someone, but I do want to see workers have some rights and protections.

But I go back to the point. Mitt Romney is a guy who made a lot of money firing people who work hard while he's never broken a sweat in his life That's just not going to play well with all the working Joes out there.

 

[kyzr]

Ah, yes......those same horror-scenarios you folks predicted, during.....



Yeah......it's gonna be a real tragedy.....watching those Bush Tax-Cuts die.....and, returning to the.....


​

I was surprised when Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts.​

That was the only way Republicans were willing to extend unemployment-insurance.....not (exactly) a big surprise to political-vets.​

1. We agree that the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea during two wars, and returning to the Clinton rates is an improvement.
2. Since we need to raise more revenue or cut entitlements we need someone to put up a real Budget.
3. IMHO the dems need to offer to cut entitlements and the GOP needs to put up some additional revenue, or they both need to agree on more "automatic cuts" like the recent Debt Commission.
4. They both need to support Simpson-Bowles
5. Other sources of revenue I'd like to see since "only little people pay taxes..."
a) transaction tax on Wall Street, the object is to raise long-term capital and create jobs
b) go after off-shore tax cheats like Wellstone wanted to do
c) prohibit "derivatives" and other global casino financial disasters
d) tax short-sales of stock at a very high rate, no more stealing 401k investments
e) Support Santorum's zero tax on US manufacturing
f) Screen Medicare recipients (no benefits if no contributions) and put a "maximum lifetime benefit" on benefits
g) Tax the drug benefit and make higher co-pays since that new entitlement is no longer affordable​

 

[pvsi.]

No wonder you're an idiot.

I agree with Romney

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is a serious question to all who support this traitor Romney, for who I find no reason to vote any more then for Obama

OK, you are venting.

 

[Oldstyle]

First of all taking the "I like to fire people" comment totally out of context to try and defame Romney is a sleazy tactic, Joe. If you don't like the guy then rip him for something substantive and not that silly shit.

No sleazier than slamming Bush-41 on "No New Taxes" when we were facing complete economic meltdown if we didn't. No sleazier than blaming Michael Dukakis for Willie HOrton. No sleazier than "Swiftboating" Kerry. No sleazier than springing a last minute old DUI charge on Bush-43.

Sorry, man, like it or not, politics is not beanbag. Romney said it. it was a stupid thing to say, and Obama will cream his with it in November. And you think the liberal MSM is going to set the record straight? Fat chance on that, buddy.

As for the Republicans putting Wall Street in front of Main Street? That's such a load of crap. The issue in 2012 is whether we are going to return to fiscal sanity in Washington or continue deluding ourselves that we can keep on spending the way we are. This isn't about putting Billionaires ahead of working folks. It's about making smart choices. When even a liberal Keynesian economist like Christina Romer is warning us not to raise taxes on ANYONE in a weak economy, then why are we still having this discussion? WE SHOULD NOT RAISE TAXES UNTIL THE ECONOMY IS STRONG!!! Why is this such a hard concept for so many of you people to understand? Obama and the Democrats are running on "tax the rich" because it's a populist message that they think will get them reelected. Well, I hate to throw cold water on the progressives that are all a twitter with how well that message is polling but at some point the electorate is going to realize that it was all just a big con job and they are going to be pissed that they were misled. It might happen next Fall...it might take a year after that...but sooner or later that bill IS going to come due.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich and we had 8 years of sustained growth. I personally am against a tax increase until we've squeezed every ounce of efficiency out of the Federal Government. BUt inevitably, it's going to have to happen. We owe too much money.

Of course, Obama hitting on the issue of taxes on the rich are going to resonate a lot more the longer Romney refuses to release his returns. You don't think there's a reason why Obama hit on the "Buffet Rule" early? Because it resonates with people that they are paying a larger percentage of their earnings than Billionaires do because they can't access all the credits and shelters and dodges. My guess, he's already seen Romney's returns, and if Romney doesn't release them voluntarily, someone is going to "leak" them to the media. In about October.

So you're basically admitting that you ARE doing something sleazy with the whole "fire people" charge...but you think that's OK because some other sleazy people did it before? Sorry, Joe but that doesn't put you in good company. Sleazy is sleazy.

We didn't have eight years of growth because Clinton raised taxes. That's just nonsense. We had eight years of growth because of the Dot Com Boom. Now if you've got a "boom" we can use to duplicate what happened in the 90's then I'm all for raising taxes but if you think that raising them in a weak economy is going to somehow magically produce growth then I find you to be rather naive. Let's get the economy going again and THEN we can raise taxes.

Between you and me...I could care less what Romney paid. We need someone who's intelligent enough to fix the mess we're in. If YOUR nominee isn't smart enough to take advantage of the joke of a tax code we have then why would they be smart enough to fix the country? I'm sorry but Barack Obama is clueless when it comes to the economy or how to fix it. So I should vote for him because he paid more in taxes? Call me crazy but that's idiotic.

 

[JoeB131]

So you're basically admitting that you ARE doing something sleazy with the whole "fire people" charge...but you think that's OK because some other sleazy people did it before? Sorry, Joe but that doesn't put you in good company. Sleazy is sleazy.

Sorry, guess I have a different definition of sleazy. Sleazy is firing a bunch of guys to create the illusion of profitability, taking out a bunch of debt, firing some more people. and then leaving shareholders with worthless paper. Pretty much describes what "I likes to fire people" did at AmPad.

Taking a statement out of context before you remind people that's the kind of stuff he did. Not so much. Of course, Romney has said so many of these kinds of things, it's a buffet table of quotes to make him look like an out of touch rich guy.

We didn't have eight years of growth because Clinton raised taxes. That's just nonsense. We had eight years of growth because of the Dot Com Boom. Now if you've got a "boom" we can use to duplicate what happened in the 90's then I'm all for raising taxes but if you think that raising them in a weak economy is going to somehow magically produce growth then I find you to be rather naive. Let's get the economy going again and THEN we can raise taxes.

Raising taxes would be the worst choice- except for all the others. Cutting spending will destroy jobs. Borrowing more money increases our liabilities (You usually end up paying back more than you borrowed.) It should also be pointed out that Clinton raised taxes before the boom, when the economy was still in weak shape.

Between you and me...I could care less what Romney paid. We need someone who's intelligent enough to fix the mess we're in. If YOUR nominee isn't smart enough to take advantage of the joke of a tax code we have then why would they be smart enough to fix the country? I'm sorry but Barack Obama is clueless when it comes to the economy or how to fix it. So I should vote for him because he paid more in taxes? Call me crazy but that's idiotic.

First, I don't buy this notion that romney is some kind of financial genius. 22% of the companies he invested in went bankrupt. Secondly, I don't consider scamming the tax code to be a source of morality or decency. Romney is a guy who was born on third base and thought he hit a triple.

 

[California Girl]

So you prefer not to be able to fire anyone... not even the provider who is committing fraud and stealing your money?

No wonder you're an idiot.

I agree with Romney - I like being able to fire someone. Do I like to do it? No. But I certainly like being able to. But then, I am a rational, intelligent adult.

He didn't say, "I like to be able to fire people who are stealing from me and committing fraud". He said "I like to be able to fire people who are providing me service". In fact, Fraud and Stealing were no where in his speech.

My preference would be that if you fire someone, you'd better have a darned good reason for doing it. If it's because there has been a downturn, you should offer that person a job back WHEN things recover. Which is what we used to have when workers had more rights. If there is actual malfeasence (which was the case with the two folks I had to fire back when I was a supervisor in the 1990's) you'd better be able to document that you were in the right.

Incidently, last job I was at, I was fired not because of my performance (my reviews for six years were exemplary, even after a reorganization put me in a job that wasn't my speciality) but because I ran up a lot of medical bills in 2007. My lawyer told me I had a great case to sue, but I declined to do so. Also, I was able to land a new job within two weeks.

No, I don't want to see what you have with the Teacher's unions, where it is impossible to fire someone, but I do want to see workers have some rights and protections.

But I go back to the point. Mitt Romney is a guy who made a lot of money firing people who work hard while he's never broken a sweat in his life That's just not going to play well with all the working Joes out there.

Ahhh, so now we see why your so happy to lie about Romney. You got fired. Un-fucking-lucky.

Fact remains, he did not say what you claim he said. You are either stupid or a liar. Repeating lies continually does not make them true.

 

[skookerasbil]

Obama is about to fire 1,000 govt workers. The Bain Capital argument for him in the debates is dead.

 

[skookerasbil]

oh......and ps......just a bit of a reminder................

 

[JoeB131]

Ahhh, so now we see why your so happy to lie about Romney. You got fired. Un-fucking-lucky.

Fact remains, he did not say what you claim he said. You are either stupid or a liar. Repeating lies continually does not make them true.

I've gotten fired a couple of times, usually because the management geniuses make horrible calculations and they either go out of business or have to fire most of their employees because they can't make payroll. This last one, they built a custom plant on the basis of a customer with a three year contract and a history of changing vendors every three years. BRILLIANT.

So whenever i hear someone say, "We need some businessmen in government", I just have to laugh. No one ever thinks their boss is a genius and he'd be great at running the country, but they think someone else's boss would be? Really? Maybe we should run this guy...

He said what he said. The adding of two words don't really change the meaning at all. He gave us a little peak into what passes for his soul, and it wasn't a pretty look. He does that from time to time. And you all want to pretend people aren't going to notice this, or they are going to hate obama so much you can put one over on them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

After 2008, conservatives were all crying about how McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough.

I used to ask them, well, tell us what conservative could have beaten Obama in 2008.

Most of them just hummunnnahummunnahummunna'ed off.

The ones that gave an answer at all?

Every one of them said 'Romney'.

 

[California Girl]

Ahhh, so now we see why your so happy to lie about Romney. You got fired. Un-fucking-lucky.

Fact remains, he did not say what you claim he said. You are either stupid or a liar. Repeating lies continually does not make them true.

I've gotten fired a couple of times, usually because the management geniuses make horrible calculations and they either go out of business or have to fire most of their employees because they can't make payroll. This last one, they built a custom plant on the basis of a customer with a three year contract and a history of changing vendors every three years. BRILLIANT.

So whenever i hear someone say, "We need some businessmen in government", I just have to laugh. No one ever thinks their boss is a genius and he'd be great at running the country, but they think someone else's boss would be? Really? Maybe we should run this guy...

He said what he said. The adding of two words don't really change the meaning at all. He gave us a little peak into what passes for his soul, and it wasn't a pretty look. He does that from time to time. And you all want to pretend people aren't going to notice this, or they are going to hate obama so much you can put one over on them.

If you don't see the difference between 'being able to' and what you claim he said then so be it. You have chosen to remain a liar, and an idiot. That's fine - I'm a supporter of personal choice... and you have made yours.

Lying idiot.

 

[Rozman]

Trying to treat this seriously, this is what will happen.

People like me will point out that Romney was an awful candidate from the get go. And they'll snarl at us for not supporting their bad choice.

Then some people will complain he wasn't "conservative" enough, and there will be some truth to that, but that isn't what cost him the election.

Romney is a bad choice. A guy who says "I like to fire people" isn't going to win a popularity contest when so many people have been fired.

But he is indicative of the GOP's bigger problem. It's a party that has put Wall Street in front of Main Steet, Billionaire ahead of working folks. Until they address THAT problem, they are going to keep losing elections.

But he is indicative of the GOP's bigger problem. It's a party that has put Wall Street in front of Main Steet, Billionaire ahead of working folks. Until they address THAT problem, they are going to keep losing elections.

Quite true...After 2008 people were right on about that....
Just look how the Republicans got the shit kicked out of them
during the 2010 mid term elections.

 

[JoeB131]

After 2008, conservatives were all crying about how McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough.

I used to ask them, well, tell us what conservative could have beaten Obama in 2008.

Most of them just hummunnnahummunnahummunna'ed off.

The ones that gave an answer at all?

Every one of them said 'Romney'.

I thought Fred Thompson would have made a great candidate. So would have Mike Huckabee. The problem, as I said earlier, is that when you have your early contests in liberal states, you get pulled to the left when you don't need to be.

Case in point, I think that if the GOP is ever going to have a future, it's going to be a guy like Huckabee who stands for traditional values and realizes the central message of Christianity is not "tax cuts for rich douchebags".

Let's review 2008. Huckabee won Iowa. That put a panic in the Wall-Street/K-Street axis that you have a guy who was a social conservative and an economic populist. So in a panic, they attempted to prop up Romney. But the problem was, people just weren't buying that guy. So McCain won NH. Realizing Romney was a lost cause, they threw all in behind McCain in SC. (Romney didn't even show up there and came in fourth.)

Realizing a protracted Romney/Huckabee fight would drive a wedge between social and economic conservatives, McCain was the comprimise candidate. Which I think was really too bad, I think Huck would been a lot more dynamic.

 

[JoeB131]

But he is indicative of the GOP's bigger problem. It's a party that has put Wall Street in front of Main Steet, Billionaire ahead of working folks. Until they address THAT problem, they are going to keep losing elections.

Quite true...After 2008 people were right on about that....
Just look how the Republicans got the shit kicked out of them
during the 2010 mid term elections.

Midterms don't count. And frankly, I wouldn't be that impressed, Democrats still won the governorships of the largest states and retained the Senate.

But if you want to go there, think about what happened in 2010. The animus there was the TEA Party and the anger that all these bailouts and sweetheart deals went to Wall Street. And not surprisingly, the GOP establishment has been trying to crush the Tea Party with every ounce of it's strength.

So basically, the GOP got it for one cycle, but now they are going back to the same old playbook.

 

[JoeB131]

If you don't see the difference between 'being able to' and what you claim he said then so be it. You have chosen to remain a liar, and an idiot. That's fine - I'm a supporter of personal choice... and you have made yours.

Lying idiot.

Okay, let's play the little game here...

"I like to be able to murder people"

"I like to be able to rape people".

"I like to be able to rob people"

"I like to be able to fire people".

Which one of those statements isn't damned scary? None of them.

Sorry, Romney just told the world who he is...

 

[skookerasbil]

Quite true...After 2008 people were right on about that....
Just look how the Republicans got the shit kicked out of them
during the 2010 mid term elections.

Midterms don't count. And frankly, I wouldn't be that impressed, Democrats still won the governorships of the largest states and retained the Senate.

But if you want to go there, think about what happened in 2010. The animus there was the TEA Party and the anger that all these bailouts and sweetheart deals went to Wall Street. And not surprisingly, the GOP establishment has been trying to crush the Tea Party with every ounce of it's strength.

So basically, the GOP got it for one cycle, but now they are going back to the same old playbook.

what a dummy..................

Dems got their clocks cleaned in the governor races in 2010.............

Election 2010 - Live Governor Election Results - CBS News






In fact, through redistricting, the HOUSE will remain GOP for the rest of the decade.