Can Obama "Swiftboat" Romney?

[JoeB131]

holy shit, they invested 60 million for 8 years for a return of a lousy 5 million ( 8.3%?)

those bastards!!!!!!!!!!




you realize that for a logical person none of this means anything right? Other than that they know when to buy, can manage assets and get out when they have to before it takes them down ....

I think the goal should be, "created businesses that last", not "got out while making money, leaving some other poor chump with bad paper".

 

[JoeB131]

On Romney, I think he'll have a very easy retort. Every time Obama tries to bring up how Obama failed this one business, Romney will simply say Obama has failed all the businesses. I don't think Obama would be smart if he tried to go toe-to-toe with Romney on which candidate is better for business.

I think this is the problem with a lot of Republican thinkers. They care about the business, not the people who work for them.

From a lot of people's perspectives, the businesses failed the rest of us. We gave them all these trade deals, all these tax breaks and incentives, and at the end of the day, we are lot worse off than we were in the 1990's

 

[Sallow]

Then someone looked at the fine print. They found his anti-War activities, they found that some of his medals were issued under dubious circumstances, the found guys who served with him who thought he was a real dirtbag.

It's his brilliant career at Bain Capital as a "turn-around" artist. His supporters just can't stop talking about it. Just as long as no one looks too close... oh, wait.

Two things. One on Kerry and one on the point of this thread.

On Kerry, his anti-war activities were well-known and were considered a plus to many liberals. He could be seen as both strong on the military because he served and someone who could serve the anti-Iraq War needs of much of the left. I think Kerry is a douche, but most of those people who "served with him" more accurately "served near him."

On Romney, I think he'll have a very easy retort. Every time Obama tries to bring up how Obama failed this one business, Romney will simply say Obama has failed all the businesses. I don't think Obama would be smart if he tried to go toe-to-toe with Romney on which candidate is better for business.

Sure he would.

Romney's business model is good for short term profit and long term misery for labor.

And in the longer term..that ultimately is bad for business since 70% of our economy is consumer driven.

No consumers...no economy.

 

[Si modo]

Improper use of terms makes your question dopey.

Yes, the Obama campaign will make use of Mitts record of killing American jobs if he is nominated. But since it is true....it is not "swift-boating" and not in any way ugly.

Actually, swiftboating is telling the truth.

But Romney made his forture making business viable which creates jobs, not destroying them.

He made a bunch of jobs, IN CHINA.

The government did that with over-taxation and over-regulation.

 

[MarcATL]

"Swiftboat" is a term meant to indicate lies that worked to destroy a campaign.

I don't see how it would apply to Romney, he's a flip-flopper of MASSIVE proportions.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, swiftboating is telling the truth.

But Romney made his forture making business viable which creates jobs, not destroying them.

He made a bunch of jobs, IN CHINA.

The government did that with over-taxation and over-regulation.

That's like saying, "she made me rape her by wearing that dress."

There's no excuse for companies outsourcing to China. None. It's economic treason.

We have the lowest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world save maybe Japan, and the lowest tax rate on individuals. And our regulations are kind of lax as well.

Now, I don't put all the blame on business. The fat slobs at WalMart buying Chinese made crap that breaks in three months are part of the problem, too.

 

[Si modo]

He made a bunch of jobs, IN CHINA.

The government did that with over-taxation and over-regulation.

That's like saying, "she made me rape her by wearing that dress."

There's no excuse for companies outsourcing to China. None. It's economic treason.

We have the lowest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world save maybe Japan, and the lowest tax rate on individuals. And our regulations are kind of lax as well.

Now, I don't put all the blame on business. The fat slobs at WalMart buying Chinese made crap that breaks in three months are part of the problem, too.

Not really like that at all.

But, keep thinking that.

The problem with the left is a refusal to accept reality. Driving forces exist - business will do what is best for their bottom line. When you understand and accept that reality, then you can make smart judgments about legislation.

Otherwise, you just dream and wish and hope, but pragmatism is what moves mountains.

 

[JoeB131]

]Not really like that at all.

But, keep thinking that.

The problem with the left is a refusal to accept reality. Driving forces exist - business will do what is best for their bottom line. When you understand and accept that reality, then you can make smart judgments about legislation.

Otherwise, you just dream and wish and hope, but pragmatism is what moves mountains.

Again, why should the world operate around what a small sliver finds profitable?

I do think a lot of the problem- as I pointed out- is consumer behavior.

Activist - "Hey, Bob just moved his factory to China, putting 200 of your neighbors out of work!"

Fat Walmart Customer - "Duh. So?"

Activist - "And he having it made with child slave labor."

FWC- "Duhhh... that keeps the price down."

Activist - "Oh, wait. And they are making the product by killing cats and using their fur!"

FWC- "Cats? I love cats. Let's organize a boycott right now!"

Talk about effed up priorities.

But the government is part of the problem, too. They sign free trade treaties, they sit by while China ignores intellectual property and copyrights, they let them float their currency.

 

[Si modo]

]Not really like that at all.

But, keep thinking that.

The problem with the left is a refusal to accept reality. Driving forces exist - business will do what is best for their bottom line. When you understand and accept that reality, then you can make smart judgments about legislation.

Otherwise, you just dream and wish and hope, but pragmatism is what moves mountains.

Again, why should the world operate around what a small sliver finds profitable?

I do think a lot of the problem- as I pointed out- is consumer behavior.

Activist - "Hey, Bob just moved his factory to China, putting 200 of your neighbors out of work!"

Fat Walmart Customer - "Duh. So?"

Activist - "And he having it made with child slave labor."

FWC- "Duhhh... that keeps the price down."

Activist - "Oh, wait. And they are making the product by killing cats and using their fur!"

FWC- "Cats? I love cats. Let's organize a boycott right now!"

Talk about effed up priorities.

But the government is part of the problem, too. They sign free trade treaties, they sit by while China ignores intellectual property and copyrights, they let them float their currency.

I don't think the government is just a part of the problem. They are the problem. A fact of life is that a business' number one priority is to add to the bottom line - it's their driving force.

When the government fails to factor in that fact in regulations, the government fails.



I used this analogy before: Water seeks lowest ground. That's a fact. It's THE driving force of water flow. If the Corps of Engineers designs levies, dams, breakwaters, shores, etc. without taking into account that fact and the waters go somewhere the public doesn't like, it's not the water's fault.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, hmmm, lemme, see, will Obama run on his record or go negative?

Wow tough call

 

[JoeB131]

]Not really like that at all.

But, keep thinking that.

The problem with the left is a refusal to accept reality. Driving forces exist - business will do what is best for their bottom line. When you understand and accept that reality, then you can make smart judgments about legislation.

Otherwise, you just dream and wish and hope, but pragmatism is what moves mountains.

Again, why should the world operate around what a small sliver finds profitable?

I do think a lot of the problem- as I pointed out- is consumer behavior.

Activist - "Hey, Bob just moved his factory to China, putting 200 of your neighbors out of work!"

Fat Walmart Customer - "Duh. So?"

Activist - "And he having it made with child slave labor."

FWC- "Duhhh... that keeps the price down."

Activist - "Oh, wait. And they are making the product by killing cats and using their fur!"

FWC- "Cats? I love cats. Let's organize a boycott right now!"

Talk about effed up priorities.

But the government is part of the problem, too. They sign free trade treaties, they sit by while China ignores intellectual property and copyrights, they let them float their currency.

I don't think the government is just a part of the problem. They are the problem. A fact of life is that a business' number one priority is to add to the bottom line - it's their driving force.

When the government fails to factor in that fact in regulations, the government fails.

I used this analogy before: Water seeks lowest ground. That's a fact. It's THE driving force of water flow. If the Corps of Engineers designs levies, dams, breakwaters, shores, etc. without taking into account that fact and the waters go somewhere the public doesn't like, it's not the water's fault.

Okay, I have a simple solution to that.

MASSIVE TARRIFS ON STUFF FROM CHINA.

You have to put a big label with the Chinese flag and a picture of people being slaughtered in Tianamen Square on the product for anything made there.

Then we'll see where the water goes.

You whine and snivel about "regulations". Hey, you know what. I LIKE drinking clean water and I LIKE breathing clean air. I like using toothpaste that doesn't have anti-freeze and I like to know that there isn't lead paint in the toys I buy my nieces for Christmas.

 

[Si modo]

Again, why should the world operate around what a small sliver finds profitable?

I do think a lot of the problem- as I pointed out- is consumer behavior.

Activist - "Hey, Bob just moved his factory to China, putting 200 of your neighbors out of work!"

Fat Walmart Customer - "Duh. So?"

Activist - "And he having it made with child slave labor."

FWC- "Duhhh... that keeps the price down."

Activist - "Oh, wait. And they are making the product by killing cats and using their fur!"

FWC- "Cats? I love cats. Let's organize a boycott right now!"

Talk about effed up priorities.

But the government is part of the problem, too. They sign free trade treaties, they sit by while China ignores intellectual property and copyrights, they let them float their currency.

I don't think the government is just a part of the problem. They are the problem. A fact of life is that a business' number one priority is to add to the bottom line - it's their driving force.

When the government fails to factor in that fact in regulations, the government fails.

I used this analogy before: Water seeks lowest ground. That's a fact. It's THE driving force of water flow. If the Corps of Engineers designs levies, dams, breakwaters, shores, etc. without taking into account that fact and the waters go somewhere the public doesn't like, it's not the water's fault.

Okay, I have a simple solution to that.

MASSIVE TARRIFS ON STUFF FROM CHINA.

You have to put a big label with the Chinese flag and a picture of people being slaughtered in Tianamen Square on the product for anything made there.

Then we'll see where the water goes.

You whine and snivel about "regulations". Hey, you know what. I LIKE drinking clean water and I LIKE breathing clean air. I like using toothpaste that doesn't have anti-freeze and I like to know that there isn't lead paint in the toys I buy my nieces for Christmas.

I don't "whine and snivel" about facts. Facts of life don't make me emotional as they do so many others, obviously.

Facts just are.

That's a possible step in the right direction - tariffs. But, before you endorse that, it is best to determine the ramifications of those tariffs.

 

[JoeB131]

You're right. I am reacting emotionally.

I don't like seeing my country in economic decline because a few greedy businessmen want to buy another polo pony. We should treat a guy who moves a factory to China just like we'd treat a guy who sold them the plans to the F-35 fighter.

But here's the underlying problem, which you fail to comprehend. Let's say I opened a factory that poisoned the water. Everyone in the town got cancer. But I made a profit. Was that a good thing?

 

[uscitizen]

You're right. I am reacting emotionally.

I don't like seeing my country in economic decline because a few greedy businessmen want to buy another polo pony. We should treat a guy who moves a factory to China just like we'd treat a guy who sold them the plans to the F-35 fighter.

But here's the underlying problem, which you fail to comprehend. Let's say I opened a factory that poisoned the water. Everyone in the town got cancer. But I made a profit. Was that a good thing?

As long as you made a profit or increased your profit margin.

 

[Si modo]

You're right. I am reacting emotionally.

I don't like seeing my country in economic decline because a few greedy businessmen want to buy another polo pony. We should treat a guy who moves a factory to China just like we'd treat a guy who sold them the plans to the F-35 fighter.

But here's the underlying problem, which you fail to comprehend. Let's say I opened a factory that poisoned the water. Everyone in the town got cancer. But I made a profit. Was that a good thing?

Still deny reality, eh?

Greed exists. And you want to legislate it out of humans? While you're at it, see if you can legislate pride, depression, hatred, contempt, etc. out of humans, too? Let me know how your totalitarian utopia works out for you.

 

[uscitizen]

You're right. I am reacting emotionally.

I don't like seeing my country in economic decline because a few greedy businessmen want to buy another polo pony. We should treat a guy who moves a factory to China just like we'd treat a guy who sold them the plans to the F-35 fighter.

But here's the underlying problem, which you fail to comprehend. Let's say I opened a factory that poisoned the water. Everyone in the town got cancer. But I made a profit. Was that a good thing?

Still deny reality, eh?

Greed exists. And you want to legislate it out of humans? While you're at it, see if you can legislate pride, depression, hatred, contempt, etc. out of humans, too? Let me know how your totalitarian utopia works out for you.

That was a bunch of useless garbage. I forget the term when you push something to the extreme, in a weak attempt to discredit it.
Kinda like we should not make DUI illegal because people are going to drink anyway.

sheesh...

 

[JoeB131]

You're right. I am reacting emotionally.

I don't like seeing my country in economic decline because a few greedy businessmen want to buy another polo pony. We should treat a guy who moves a factory to China just like we'd treat a guy who sold them the plans to the F-35 fighter.

But here's the underlying problem, which you fail to comprehend. Let's say I opened a factory that poisoned the water. Everyone in the town got cancer. But I made a profit. Was that a good thing?

Still deny reality, eh?

Greed exists. And you want to legislate it out of humans? While you're at it, see if you can legislate pride, depression, hatred, contempt, etc. out of humans, too? Let me know how your totalitarian utopia works out for you.

Reality is, we tolerate this bad behavior, and we shouldn't.

The very fact a bloodsucker like Romney who ought to be shunned in polite society is being seriously discussed as a president because he made a lot of money screwing working Joes is exactly the problem.

And yes, we CAN legistlate morality. That's why we have laws. We just need to apply them to the rich with the same vigor we do the rest of us.

Throw some corporate bloodsucker who looted the pension fun in the same prison with the guy who stuck up the 7-11, and let hilarity ensue.

 

[Si modo]

You're right. I am reacting emotionally.

I don't like seeing my country in economic decline because a few greedy businessmen want to buy another polo pony. We should treat a guy who moves a factory to China just like we'd treat a guy who sold them the plans to the F-35 fighter.

But here's the underlying problem, which you fail to comprehend. Let's say I opened a factory that poisoned the water. Everyone in the town got cancer. But I made a profit. Was that a good thing?

Still deny reality, eh?

Greed exists. And you want to legislate it out of humans? While you're at it, see if you can legislate pride, depression, hatred, contempt, etc. out of humans, too? Let me know how your totalitarian utopia works out for you.

....

And yes, we CAN legistlate morality. ....

Then you are no different than the Religious Right. They are a bunch of totalitarian whackjobs.

 

[JoeB131]

Still deny reality, eh?

Greed exists. And you want to legislate it out of humans? While you're at it, see if you can legislate pride, depression, hatred, contempt, etc. out of humans, too? Let me know how your totalitarian utopia works out for you.

....

And yes, we CAN legistlate morality. ....

Then you are no different than the Religious Right. They are a bunch of totalitarian whackjobs.

Gee, sorry, guy. I know that the scariest thing to the plutocratic apologists is that the rest of us will just stop putting up with it...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Raise your hand if you got your country's credit downgraded during your Presidency