- This topic has 62 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 23, 2012 at 9:01 PM #748817July 24, 2012 at 5:59 AM #748835
Anonymous
Guest[quote=no_such_reality]What we think is completely irrelevant.
Who wins and who loses will decide by the voter in about 5 states.
The people in those states and the issues they face are very different than what makes the typical southern Californian tick.[/quote]
The reason only 5 states “matter” is because of what we, and the other 44 states, think.
July 24, 2012 at 9:41 AM #748839Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=briansd1]
*With regard to Clinton, you seem to take pleasure to bring him up. I know you fixate on the legal perjury charges.
What bothers me with the prosecution of Clinton is that his detractors pretty much set him up to lie about the affair then prosecuted him for it (although he technically did not lie because no intercourse means no sex). Whatever was left of conservative decency was gone with the persecution of Clinton.
Yes, Clinton committed a legal mistake and paid the price for it. I’m sure that Romney won’t make the same legal mistake. Romney will somehow argue that his filings were legally accurate. But that would make his public pronouncements big fat lies. Whatever happened to Christian values making lying a sin?[/quote]
Brian: Please. Clinton was an exceptionally adept politician and a very skilled in-fighter. His handling of the hapless Newt Gingrich illustrates this quite well.
The idea that he was somehow led to slaughter by the GOP is risible and without merit. Does that mean it wasn’t a political witch-hunt? Nope, it absolutely was. Clinton was extremely popular and his “New Democrat” blueprint undoubtedly scared the shit out of the GOP and the rest, as they say, is history. But the idea that Clinton was this deer in the headlights is nonsensical. Politics is a bloodsport and the Clintons play it better than anyone. Just witness what Bubba has done to Obama (who, in case you haven’t noticed, is a member of the same party) for a taste of that.
You’re an intelligent guy, Brian, as your posts indicate. But you have this farcical notion that ALL Dems are innately pure, innocent and good and ALL Repubs are innately venal, evil and grasping. Not exactly the real world.
July 24, 2012 at 9:48 AM #748840Participant[quote=briansd1]
Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.
Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”
Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.
Look at the facts, Allan. How do the elections and SEC filings reconcile with Romney’s public statements?
[/quote]
Brian: You ask a good question, and I don’t want to fire from the hip on it. I want to look into this and I’ll answer that question.
I’ll leave you with this, however. A good friend of mine is a practicing attorney. During his earlier years of practice, he was a partner and general counsel in an engineering firm (his fledgling practice hadn’t taken off yet, so he needed another source of income.) When his practice took off, he relinquished his role at the engineering firm, but still drew a salary and provided guidance to the new general counsel. It isn’t an uncommon practice and I see it all the time with passive owners or semi-retired owners or people who maintain a significant ownership percentage but are not present for the day-to-day operations.
July 24, 2012 at 1:22 PM #748847briansd1
Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I’ll leave you with this, however. [/quote]F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote: “Let me tell you about the very rich….”
Allan, you’re asking us to sympathize with the context of Mitt Romney’s multi-billion dollar business and the complexity of his dealings. Here you’re ignoring the moral and ethical sin of lying.
Romney could have said: “I ran a complex multi-billion dollar business; I had deals to complete, accounts to close, money to transfer, all in amounts that you people cannot begin to understand. Do you realize that I sacrificed and gave up making even greater wealth to become the leader of you people? So stop pestering me with the little details.”
But Romney was not honest….
Romney first deployed the defense that he left the firm in February 1999 as a candidate for governor in 2002, when Democrat Shannon O’Brien featured a laid-off worker from a Kansas City steel mill that went bankrupt in 2001, after Bain Capital had reaped a handsome profit from its investment in the company. “Romney has taken responsibility for making the initial investment but has said he could not be blamed for management decisions at the company,” the Globe reported at the time.
Romney wants credit for “creating jobs” while at Bain, but he doesn’t the public to analyze to totality of the Bain business model.
In reality, leverage buyouts or private equity, is all about financial alchemy and making money for investors.
What the public should be looking is the fact that Bain took foreign investors’ money through offshore accounts to invest in America. Those investors earned profits but were able to avoid US income taxes thanks to the offshore facilities.
Of course, all of Romney’s dealing are perfectly legal. But do they square with the public’s view of good policy for the American economy?
July 24, 2012 at 1:27 PM #748848dumbrenter
Participant[quote=briansd1] Romney could have said: “I ran a complex multi-billion dollar business; I had deals to complete, accounts to close, money to transfer, all in amounts that you people cannot begin to understand. Do you realize that I sacrificed and gave up making even greater wealth to become the leader of you people? So stop pestering me with the little details.”
[/quote]If Romney does say that, he’ll get my vote for sure.
July 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM #748849Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I’ll leave you with this, however. [/quote]F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote: “Let me tell you about the very rich….”
Allan, you’re asking us to sympathize with the context of Mitt Romney’s multi-billion dollar business and the complexity of his dealings. Here you’re ignoring the moral and ethical sin of lying.
Romney could have said: “I ran a complex multi-billion dollar business; I had deals to complete, accounts to close, money to transfer, all in amounts that you people cannot begin to understand. Do you realize that I sacrificed and gave up making even greater wealth to become the leader of you people? So stop pestering me with the little details.”
But Romney was not honest….
Romney first deployed the defense that he left the firm in February 1999 as a candidate for governor in 2002, when Democrat Shannon O’Brien featured a laid-off worker from a Kansas City steel mill that went bankrupt in 2001, after Bain Capital had reaped a handsome profit from its investment in the company. “Romney has taken responsibility for making the initial investment but has said he could not be blamed for management decisions at the company,” the Globe reported at the time.
Romney wants credit for “creating jobs” while at Bain, but he doesn’t the public to analyze to totality of the Bain business model.
In reality, leverage buyouts or private equity, is all about financial alchemy and making money for investors.
What the public should be looking is the fact that Bain took foreign investors’ money through offshore accounts to invest in America. Those investors earned profits but were able to avoid US income taxes thanks to the offshore facilities.
Of course, all of Romney’s dealing are perfectly legal. But do they square with the public’s view of good policy for the American economy?[/quote]
Brian: It’s Red Herring Day! Nope, did NOT ask you to sympathize with anyone, rich or not. What I did was offer some examples off the top of my head of situations that may be similar. And those examples followed my assertion that I did NOT have all the facts, but would look into it.
So, whole cloth, you come back with a counter-factual (that contains NO facts) and attempt to paint a picture of Romney, wherein Romney tells us mere mortals what “really happened”. Except it didn’t happen at all and you simply made it up, because it supports your narrative and your worldview.
Did Romney lie? I don’t honestly know and you have yet to provide any “objective” proof (as per your catamite buddy’s view of events) that concretely makes that case.
Again, Brian, you casually cherry pick those “facts” that supposedly supports your view and ignore all others which don’t. I’m clearly stating that I don’t know, but will check it out, as I’ve clearly owned up to when I’m wrong. It’s interesting to note that you’re never wrong, just as Democrats are also apparently never wrong, nor do Democrats ever lie.
Gitmo
NDAA
Patriot I/II
Warrantless Wiretapping
Targeted Assassination of US citizens
Extraordinary Rendition
This shit would seem to be a mite more important than an SEC disclosure, wouldn’t it?
You want to have an honest and objective discussion, I’m all for it. But you really don’t, do you? You want to hold true to The Narrative and just ignore those things that don’t comport with it.
July 24, 2012 at 2:16 PM #748851Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: Please. Clinton was an exceptionally adept politician and a very skilled in-fighter. His handling of the hapless Newt Gingrich illustrates this quite well.The idea that he was somehow led to slaughter by the GOP is risible and without merit. […][/quote]
So he was too good to get caught, and yet he still got caught?
[quote]You’re an intelligent guy, Brian, as your posts indicate. But you have this farcical notion that ALL Dems are innately pure, innocent and good and ALL Repubs are innately venal, evil and grasping.[/quote]
No, he doesn’t.
He just said that Clinton got caught cheating on his wife.
July 24, 2012 at 2:29 PM #748853Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
GitmoNDAA
Patriot I/II
Warrantless Wiretapping
Targeted Assassination of US citizens
Extraordinary Rendition
This shit would seem to be a mite more important than an SEC disclosure, wouldn’t it?
[/quote]Absolutely. This shit is far more important to the American public who watches Fox News.
They expect their president to get them terrorists, and wouldn’t respect one who didn’t.
It’s not about facts, it’s about perception.
A perception created mostly by the conservative media machine – THE force in American politics today.
July 24, 2012 at 2:56 PM #748854Guest[quote=harvey]
They expect their president to get them terrorists, and wouldn’t respect one who didn’t.It’s not about facts, it’s about perception.
A perception created mostly by the conservative media machine – THE force in American politics today.[/quote]
That is so true.
In fact, the conservative media machine doesn’t care one bit about civil liberties.
Case in point: SB1070, the Arizona immigration law, and similar laws. Voter ID laws, etc…
Republicans tend to argue that “if you have nothing to hide, what’s the big deal with being asked your ID?”
About terrorists, the frequent answer is “nuke ’em all, everything else is collateral damage.”
July 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM #748876Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=harvey]
They expect their president to get them terrorists, and wouldn’t respect one who didn’t.It’s not about facts, it’s about perception.
A perception created mostly by the conservative media machine – THE force in American politics today.[/quote]
That is so true.
In fact, the conservative media machine doesn’t care one bit about civil liberties.
Case in point: SB1070, the Arizona immigration law, and similar laws. Voter ID laws, etc…
Republicans tend to argue that “if you have nothing to hide, what’s the big deal with being asked your ID?”
About terrorists, the frequent answer is “nuke ’em all, everything else is collateral damage.”[/quote]
Brian: Boy, talk about an echo chamber, combined with confirmation bias.
Here’s an interesting article from The Daily Beast (the center-left publication) regarding US covert activities in Somalia: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/24/obama-s-not-so-secret-terror-war.html
If it smells a little like Reagan’s shenanigans in Central America during the 1980s, it’s because it’s essentially using the same blueprint.
What you absolutely fail to address is the FACT that Obama is not only continuing the lamentable policies of George W. Bush (which he actively campaigned AGAINST), but he is expanding/amplifying covert operations, including programs that actively violate US restrictions on same.
Your response has been to ignore these facts and instead attempt to deflect attention by arguing somehow that shredding the Constitution is necessary to fight terrorism. Granted, while shabby, this “defense” isn’t nearly as howlingly funny and moronic as blaming Fox News and Roger Ailes (that IS a new one, in terms of sententious credulity).
I have never ONCE heard you even admit that Obama is following the policies of his predecessor, policies that you justifiably pilloried (when committed by Dubya), but are now silent on.
You castigate conservatives for their attitude on terror, but have nothing to say about liberals blindly following the same policies you’re attacking conservatives for. Wow. If that isn’t completely contorted logic, I don’t know what is.
July 25, 2012 at 3:50 AM #748881Guest[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
[…]What you absolutely fail to address is the FACT that Obama is not only continuing the lamentable policies of George W. Bush (which he actively campaigned AGAINST), but he is expanding/amplifying covert operations, including programs that actively violate US restrictions on same.
Your response has been to ignore these facts and instead attempt to deflect attention by arguing somehow that shredding the Constitution is necessary to fight terrorism. Granted, while shabby, this “defense” isn’t nearly as howlingly funny and moronic as blaming Fox News and Roger Ailes (that IS a new one, in terms of sententious credulity).
I have never ONCE heard you even admit that Obama is following the policies of his predecessor, policies that you justifiably pilloried (when committed by Dubya), but are now silent on.
You castigate conservatives for their attitude on terror, but have nothing to say about liberals blindly following the same policies you’re attacking conservatives for. Wow. If that isn’t completely contorted logic, I don’t know what is.[/quote]
Most of that was utter bullshit, but this particular line deserves attention:
“Your response has been […] arguing somehow that shredding the Constitution is necessary to fight terrorism.”
That is a pathetic strawman, and actually an outright lie. Brian has never made that claim.
(And neither have I, so don’t go there. If you like, I can provide a link to the thread where you accused me in the same way, I proved you wrong by citing my actual words, and you apologized. We’ve been down this road before…)
Allan, just because we don’t share your obsession with Obama’s disappointing civil liberties record doesn’t mean we don’t care about the issue. It’s just that we understand the context of Obama’s actions, because it matters. You purposely ignore the landscape, because otherwise you would have to acknowledge that you are part of it.
But what is really pathetic about your cheap attack on Brian is the fact that this thread is about Romney. Read the title.
But, once again, Allan always steers it to his pet issue, and Obama.
Yes it’s always 100% Obama’s fault. No mention of the Republican congress, no mention of the dominant conservative media and their endless barrage of fear mongering. The substantial majority of Americans who get all of their news from Fox don’t even exist in Allan’s world.
Obama Obama Obama Obama….
No mention of solutions.
Allan, you don’t like Obama. We get it.
And you never do say who you do support. In the usual pattern, you are now defending Romney but stop short of supporting him. And you certainly don’t apply the same standards when evaluating him.
Alan, what is Mitt Romney’s position on civil liberties?
Or is it that we don’t ask that question when it’s a Republican…
BTW: If you actually do care about how to move forward on the civil liberties issues, here’s a book that explains the context:
I posted this before (on your thread):
http://piggington.com/gary_johnson_wins_libertarian_nomination
(Look for post dated May 8, 2012 – 7:22am)It seems you choose to ignore anything that offers actual depth of understanding or possible solutions. Much easier to rant on Obama and attack Brian for things he didn’t even say.
July 25, 2012 at 10:30 AM #748896Guest[quote=harvey]
Allan, just because we don’t share your obsession with Obama’s disappointing civil liberties record doesn’t mean we don’t care about the issue. It’s just that we understand the context of Obama’s actions, because it matters. [/quote]As Harvey so well said, the key word is context.
I understand the context of Clinton’s lie about his affair.
I also perfectly understand the context of Romney’s complex business dealings at Bain; and I certainly don’t think that he’s a felon. But Romney didn’t have to lie about his business activities and insist on a firm cutoff date that he himself did not abide by. In fact, the Feb 1999 separation date from Bain was made up by Romney is 2002, after the fact, in order to defect political criticism.
I also undertand the context of Obama’s actions on terrorism and the wars. Once laws are passed, policies implemented and wars have started, they are hard to undo.
That’s precisely why libertarians don’t believe in passing new laws, but in enforcing existing laws.
So why are Republicans pushing civil liberties killing anti-immigration laws and voter ID laws?Because they wrap themselves in sanctimonious religious morality to hide the fact that they are slimebags.
The voter ID mess subverts an American birthright.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charlie-crist-the-voter-id-mess-subverts-an-american-birthright/2012/07/20/gJQAzOCsyW_story.htmlAllan, you may argue the Democrats are the same and they are slimebags too. But they do not bring up God all the time. There’s another difference for you.
July 30, 2012 at 4:31 PM #749277poorgradstudent
ParticipantSo now that Romney’s foreign policy tour has pretty much been a disaster, does this change the game at all? Is Romney now forced to pick a VP Candidate with stronger foreign policy credentials? It did work for Obama in 2008; he was perceived as weak and inexperienced on FP and picked Biden partially to balance the ticket in that regard.
The trouble, of course, is most strong FP republicans aren’t the type to throw a lot of red meat to the tea partiers… I don’t envy his position. He’s got big shoes to fill for his running mate and no obvious candidate.July 30, 2012 at 5:58 PM #749279Participant[quote=briansd1]
I also undertand the context of Obama’s actions on terrorism and the wars. Once laws are passed, policies implemented and wars have started, they are hard to undo.[/quote]
Brian: So, um, if a law violates basic civil liberties and rights, it’s okay to leave it on the books because it’s so darn hard to undo?
Wow. That’s a new one. So, Obama didn’t lie on the campaign trail, he simply didn’t understand, once he got to DC, that those laws he promised to repeal would be hard to undo?
Do I understand your reasoning correctly?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.