Who On This Board Thinks

[candycorn]

Did you know Mitt's real name is "Willard"?

Willard.

Did you know he had hispanic heritage?

Oh and guess what...you can't have corporations without people, who the hell was the one vote LOL

I voted "no". I think you can click on the colored bars and see who voted how.

I did not know about the Hispanic Heritage.

 

[freedombecki]

Who in the wh is named Hussein?

Like who in a river in Egypt is in Denile?

We can tell you're from the red state....it is spelled "denial".

Picking out the splinter in someone else's eye with a log in your own is amusing today, is it?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Did you know Mitt's real name is "Willard"?

Willard.

Did you know he had hispanic heritage?

Oh and guess what...you can't have corporations without people, who the hell was the one vote LOL

I voted "no". I think you can click on the colored bars and see who voted how.

I did not know about the Hispanic Heritage.

Mitt Romney's Mexican Roots; His Father Was Born In Mexico, Could Choose Dual Citizenship

 

[WillowTree]

Obama's middle name is Hussein.

The reason why WillowTree chose Hussein instead of Obama as a name to say is because the name Hussein conjures up more of a bomb-carrying, towel-head, fanatical Muslim stereotype image than the name Obama.

You can tell it's election year.. We're not allowed to call him by the name he mama gave him.. I remember that now from 2007-2008..

I get the impression you're not from America. In America, the standard is to refer to a person by his or her first name, unless they otherwise say they would prefer to be called by their middle or last name. To do otherwise is a sign of disrespect.

Guilty as charged. ya see? I'm keeping my promise.. you people who called President Bush "shrub" "Hitler" "W" "chimp" ya reaps what you sows sow.

 

[WillowTree]

Did you know he had hispanic heritage?

Oh and guess what...you can't have corporations without people, who the hell was the one vote LOL

I voted "no". I think you can click on the colored bars and see who voted how.

I did not know about the Hispanic Heritage.

Mitt Romney's Mexican Roots; His Father Was Born In Mexico, Could Choose Dual Citizenship

He'll be our first Hispanic President.

 

[Wiseacre]

Did you know he had hispanic heritage?

Oh and guess what...you can't have corporations without people, who the hell was the one vote LOL

I voted "no". I think you can click on the colored bars and see who voted how.

I did not know about the Hispanic Heritage.

Mitt Romney's Mexican Roots; His Father Was Born In Mexico, Could Choose Dual Citizenship

First of all, this comes fromthe HuffPo, always be careful about believing what you read there. It never says Mitt Romney has Mexican blood, merely that his father was born there. To Mormon parents who were fleeing Utah after they declared polygamy illegal. George (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico, but I wouldn't say that means Mitt has any Mexican heritage.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Did you know he had hispanic heritage?

Oh and guess what...you can't have corporations without people, who the hell was the one vote LOL

I voted "no". I think you can click on the colored bars and see who voted how.

I did not know about the Hispanic Heritage.

Mitt Romney's Mexican Roots; His Father Was Born In Mexico, Could Choose Dual Citizenship

Was Mitt an anchor baby? The article doesn't say.....

 

[WillowTree]

I voted "no". I think you can click on the colored bars and see who voted how.

I did not know about the Hispanic Heritage.

Mitt Romney's Mexican Roots; His Father Was Born In Mexico, Could Choose Dual Citizenship

First of all, this comes fromthe HuffPo, always be careful about believing what you read there. It never says Mitt Romney has Mexican blood, merely that his father was born there. To Mormon parents who were fleeing Utah after they declared polygamy illegal. George (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico, but I wouldn't say that means Mitt has any Mexican heritage.

It's true.. I was watching Fox News the other night. Geraldo and O'Reilly. Geraldo gave the history of the Romney family and their Mexican heritage. Grandad and dad were born in Mexico.

 

[Mr.Nick]

a corporation would exist without people?

How could a corporation exist without people??

Well, I suppose one could apply for corporate status and do nothing with the title.

 

[DontBeStupid]

a corporation would exist without people?

How could a corporation exist without people??

Well, I suppose one could apply for corporate status and do nothing with the title.

Bingo.

 

[Grandma]

If there's a competition for Stupid Thread of the Year, I nominate this one.

First of all, yes, there are corporations that exist on paper only, fronts for other operations usually operating unethically or illegally.


But that isn't even close to the point of this thread or ever so many threads on why a CEO would make a great President. The fact is that CORPORATIONS EXIST TO MAKE PROFIT. What is the point in that profit? If it's for individuals, it's a desire for a lavish lifestyle.

But what if it's for a nation? Who are the beneficiaries?

Let's say all our debt was reduced to zero, below that, even, to where we're showing a profit. Does the government CEO then give each citizen a dividend? Does the government CEO put that profit into programs? Of course not. The CEO puts some of that profit into offshore accounts and puts some in the stock market.

It's been the history in this country for CEOs to avoid upgrading and updating their businesses, choosing to keep the profits for themselves and the shareholders, even to the point of raiding employee pension funds. When the business fails, the CEO and shareholders shut down the business and walk away, leaving the employees and dependents holding the bag.

That's not a good model for running a country.

 

[Wiseacre]

It doesn't matter what "most people" think about them. A corporation can exist purely on paper. That is fact. That is reality. This isn't a debatable topic.

No, that is not a fact, it is an opinion. Maybe the real issue is your definition of what a corporation really is. I say if there's no people involved, it ain't a corporation.

So, it doesn't matter what most people think. If that isn't typical left wing arrogant crap, I don't know what is.

And you would be wrong.

In your opinion. Corporations have stockholders, owners, and employees. They do something to make money. You're talking essentially about shell companies that exist presumably as a tax dodge in some way, or maybe as an instrument to avoid liability. I do not label something like that as a corporation. If you see it differently, fine. Seems wrong though to lump the two different entities together, but then that's what lefties do.

 

[WillowTree]

If there's a competition for Stupid Thread of the Year, I nominate this one.

First of all, yes, there are corporations that exist on paper only, fronts for other operations usually operating unethically or illegally.


But that isn't even close to the point of this thread or ever so many threads on why a CEO would make a great President. The fact is that CORPORATIONS EXIST TO MAKE PROFIT. What is the point in that profit? If it's for individuals, it's a desire for a lavish lifestyle.

But what if it's for a nation? Who are the beneficiaries?

Let's say all our debt was reduced to zero, below that, even, to where we're showing a profit. Does the government CEO then give each citizen a dividend? Does the government CEO put that profit into programs? Of course not. The CEO puts some of that profit into offshore accounts and puts some in the stock market.

It's been the history in this country for CEOs to avoid upgrading and updating their businesses, choosing to keep the profits for themselves and the shareholders, even to the point of raiding employee pension funds. When the business fails, the CEO and shareholders shut down the business and walk away, leaving the employees and dependents holding the bag.

That's not a good model for running a country.

Solyndra.. only this time it was we the people left holding obummer's bag.

 

[DontBeStupid]

No, that is not a fact, it is an opinion. Maybe the real issue is your definition of what a corporation really is. I say if there's no people involved, it ain't a corporation.

So, it doesn't matter what most people think. If that isn't typical left wing arrogant crap, I don't know what is.

And you would be wrong.

In your opinion. Corporations have stockholders, owners, and employees. They do something to make money. You're talking essentially about shell companies that exist presumably as a tax dodge in some way, or maybe as an instrument to avoid liability. I do not label something like that as a corporation. If you see it differently, fine. Seems wrong though to lump the two different entities together, but then that's what lefties do.

And you are wrong.

Do you also label the sun green and the sky red?

Honestly, why are you trying to argue with me over something that is fact? Why are you choosing to be ignorant on this topic? Don't be stupid, look it up!

 

[Mr.Nick]

If there's a competition for Stupid Thread of the Year, I nominate this one.

First of all, yes, there are corporations that exist on paper only, fronts for other operations usually operating unethically or illegally.


But that isn't even close to the point of this thread or ever so many threads on why a CEO would make a great President. The fact is that CORPORATIONS EXIST TO MAKE PROFIT. What is the point in that profit? If it's for individuals, it's a desire for a lavish lifestyle.

But what if it's for a nation? Who are the beneficiaries?

Let's say all our debt was reduced to zero, below that, even, to where we're showing a profit. Does the government CEO then give each citizen a dividend? Does the government CEO put that profit into programs? Of course not. The CEO puts some of that profit into offshore accounts and puts some in the stock market.

It's been the history in this country for CEOs to avoid upgrading and updating their businesses, choosing to keep the profits for themselves and the shareholders, even to the point of raiding employee pension funds. When the business fails, the CEO and shareholders shut down the business and walk away, leaving the employees and dependents holding the bag.

That's not a good model for running a country.

Our government isn't a business and should never be run as a for-profit business.

Also, businesses do business to make profit. Some people believe the purpose of the business is just to provide people with jobs...

I find it funny how some people believe profit should be redistributed equally amongst the employees...

Really??

It's funny how the employees risked absolutely nothing working for said company, while those who built the business invested lots of capital all on a gamble..

If an individual wants to reap the reward of successful business then they can financially invest in a successful business.

Employees should get absolutely nothing other than basic fringe benefits. If they want anything more than that then they can pony up some $$$$$$ and take a risk like anyone else that has the balls to take a gamble.

 

[Mr.Nick]

And you would be wrong.

In your opinion. Corporations have stockholders, owners, and employees. They do something to make money. You're talking essentially about shell companies that exist presumably as a tax dodge in some way, or maybe as an instrument to avoid liability. I do not label something like that as a corporation. If you see it differently, fine. Seems wrong though to lump the two different entities together, but then that's what lefties do.

And you are wrong.

Do you also label the sun green and the sky red?

Honestly, why are you trying to argue with me over something that is fact? Why are you choosing to be ignorant on this topic? Don't be stupid, look it up!

One could never get away with using a corporation as a "front."

I'm sure there are some "corporations" that do funky shit, however in order to get way with that funky shit they have to at least operate as a legitimate corporation.

 

[Vel]

Did you know Mitt's real name is "Willard"?

Willard.

I'd heard that. Good thing for him too. His Mom could have given him some hooker name like.. Candy or something.

 

[Grandma]

If there's a competition for Stupid Thread of the Year, I nominate this one.

First of all, yes, there are corporations that exist on paper only, fronts for other operations usually operating unethically or illegally.


But that isn't even close to the point of this thread or ever so many threads on why a CEO would make a great President. The fact is that CORPORATIONS EXIST TO MAKE PROFIT. What is the point in that profit? If it's for individuals, it's a desire for a lavish lifestyle.

But what if it's for a nation? Who are the beneficiaries?

Let's say all our debt was reduced to zero, below that, even, to where we're showing a profit. Does the government CEO then give each citizen a dividend? Does the government CEO put that profit into programs? Of course not. The CEO puts some of that profit into offshore accounts and puts some in the stock market.

It's been the history in this country for CEOs to avoid upgrading and updating their businesses, choosing to keep the profits for themselves and the shareholders, even to the point of raiding employee pension funds. When the business fails, the CEO and shareholders shut down the business and walk away, leaving the employees and dependents holding the bag.

That's not a good model for running a country.

Our government isn't a business and should never be run as a for-profit business.

Also, businesses do business to make profit. Some people believe the purpose of the business is just to provide people with jobs...

I find it funny how some people believe profit should be redistributed equally amongst the employees...

Really??

It's funny how the employees risked absolutely nothing working for said company, while those who built the business invested lots of capital all on a gamble..

If an individual wants to reap the reward of successful business then they can financially invest in a successful business.

Employees should get absolutely nothing other than basic fringe benefits. If they want anything more than that then they can pony up some $$$$$$ and take a risk like anyone else that has the balls to take a gamble.

You can run your business as you see fit.

My point is that Willard is running and being looked upon as a businessman. That is not what the country needs in the Oval Office.

My hypothetical candidate of choice would be a surgeon specializing in cancer treatment.

 

[Wiseacre]

And you would be wrong.

In your opinion. Corporations have stockholders, owners, and employees. They do something to make money. You're talking essentially about shell companies that exist presumably as a tax dodge in some way, or maybe as an instrument to avoid liability. I do not label something like that as a corporation. If you see it differently, fine. Seems wrong though to lump the two different entities together, but then that's what lefties do.

And you are wrong.

Do you also label the sun green and the sky red?

Honestly, why are you trying to argue with me over something that is fact? Why are you choosing to be ignorant on this topic? Don't be stupid, look it up!

I did look it up, thank you. Corporations are comprised of people, who do something to make a profit. You're talking about some other kind of business entity, if it only exists on paper it is NOT a corporation. I know you would love to lump both things together so you can bitch about the one and smear the other, knock yourself out. But what you're trying to say and do is demagoguery.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Who On This Board Thinks

Well...... ....we know it isn't you!!​