BTW, where were all these "fiscal conservatives" when George W. Bush was spending billions in Iraq while simultaneously cutting taxes? Also, Bush's approval ratings were below 50% at re-election time.

because, pick6, much like rabid liberals would wake up in the morning, stub their toe, and then blame President Bush, conservatives just cant let go of the fact that a black man is running this country, so much so they'd choose a billionaire mormon born on a mexican polygamy ranch.

Sage;1212284 wrote:BTW, where were all these "fiscal conservatives" when George W. Bush was spending billions in Iraq while simultaneously cutting taxes? Also, Bush's approval ratings were below 50% at re-election time.

1. The fiscal conservatives were complaining about Bush's deficits as well, you just didn't care to listen.
2. You are incorrect, just before the election Bush was over 50%, it was not until around the beginning of his 2nd term it dropped below 50%.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

Look at the area around the 3rd Q of 2004, you will see Bush over 50% then a fall off after that. I'm sorry that facts don't agree with you, but they do not.

Pick6;1212283 wrote:I don't talk politics much, but I suppose I'll give a try.

I'm curious to see WHY people think a guy who:
1) is the 1st candidate who will likely outspend the President in campaigning
2) ran not one, two, or three, but four businesses into the ground.
3) when governor of Mass, ranked 47th out of 50 in job creation
4) left Mass with more debt per person than any other state

..is supposed to save our country?

1)Hold on there, partner. It's been well advertised that the Obama money machine will collect $1,000,000,000 in campaign contributions. However, I will agree that Barry will spend more than he will bring in. It's in his genes.
2) He probably had more failures than four. Shockingly, Bain Capital was not successful 100% of the time. Hard to believe, eh? He was responsible for saving more businesses than not and the Salt Lake Olympics were a success directly because of his involvement. On a side note, no one succeeds without failing first. Except, of course, GM, which gets to fail and get mo money from taxpayers because they're "too big to fail".
3) I've seen statistics where Mass was 30th. It depends on which graph you're looking at I suppose: The one from MSNBC or Fox.
4) Whom is the King of All Debt Creators? Whom is responsible for trillion dollar+ annual deficits as long as they've been in office? Regarding Mass, I'm pretty sure they have to have a balanced budget as they aren't authorized to print money out of thin air to cover debts like Barry can do with his willing accomplices at the Fed.

I'm curious as to WHY people that have lived through the incredible failures of the current occupier for 3 and a half years who are more than willing to give us all four more years of failure. Must be a lot of fans of the Marquis de Sade out there.

Pick6;1212283 wrote:I don't talk politics much, but I suppose I'll give a try.

I'm curious to see WHY people think a guy who:
1) is the 1st candidate who will likely outspend the President in campaigning
2) ran not one, two, or three, but four businesses into the ground.
3) when governor of Mass, ranked 47th out of 50 in job creation
4) left Mass with more debt per person than any other state

..is supposed to save our country?

1. You haven't been paying attention if you think Obama isn't WAY ahead in the campaign spending/fundraising.
2. When you are a CEO of a private equity firm, one that's whole business is to buy failing businesses and try to turn them around, you will have multiple failures. However, with these multiple failures you will have more successes or the private equity firm would go bankrupt. Its the nature of that beast, you are already buying companies that are failing, sometimes they can't be turned around.
3. When Romney took over Massachusetts was 50th in job creation, when he left it was 47th. Still not great, but it was better.
4. Massachusetts was 1st in debt per capita when Romney took over, it has been in the top 5 of the 50 states for decades. When Romney took over Massachusetts the annual debt growth rate in the state was 5.8%. When we left it was 1.9%. So he didn't turn it around, but he slowed it down.


Now, if you stop watching MSNBC and assuming the Obama ad where you got all 4 of those talking points didn't skew that facts, you will see that while Romney is NOT the best answer for the job, he is MUCH better than the current office holder.

jmog;1212297 wrote:1. You haven't been paying attention if you think Obama isn't WAY ahead in the campaign spending/fundraising.
2. When you are a CEO of a private equity firm, one that's whole business is to buy failing businesses and try to turn them around, you will have multiple failures. However, with these multiple failures you will have more successes or the private equity firm would go bankrupt. Its the nature of that beast, you are already buying companies that are failing, sometimes they can't be turned around.
3. When Romney took over Massachusetts was 50th in job creation, when he left it was 47th. Still not great, but it was better.
4. Massachusetts was 1st in debt per capita when Romney took over, it has been in the top 5 of the 50 states for decades. When Romney took over Massachusetts the annual debt growth rate in the state was 5.8%. When we left it was 1.9%. So he didn't turn it around, but he slowed it down.


Now, if you stop watching MSNBC and assuming the Obama ad where you got all 4 of those talking points didn't skew that facts, you will see that while Romney is NOT the best answer for the job, he is MUCH better than the current office holder.

Fair points, although I dont really buy the copout for #2. Also, I do not watch MSNBC. I have stayed with my grandparents the past few weeks and all my grandfather watches is Fox.

1. jmog, i was listening then more than i am now. i don't recall the debt being a crusade against conservatives like it is now. wasn't it bush who started the stiumulus proceedings -- which, by the way, pretty much every rational economist has said saved the situation from being WAY WORSE (and IMO, didn't go far enough).

2. it appears youre right and my memory is wrong about bush's approval ratings. *shrug* it doesn't change the fact Obama is going to win handily come November. I will take whatever sort of bets anybody wants to bet on this.

3. BG Falcons, you are an under-educated white muppet. I had my suspicions at ur username, but ur clipart GIF of a snake flag all but confirms it. plz tell me u r a tea partier so i can soundly trounce your shitty little world views.

Pick6;1212312 wrote:Fair points, although I dont really buy the copout for #2. Also, I do not watch MSNBC. I have stayed with my grandparents the past few weeks and all my grandfather watches is Fox.

I would say my answers to 3 and 4 are more "copouts" than 2. When you run a venture capital or private equity firm you are purposely buying companies to try to turn them around. Sometimes companies can't be turned around. Instead of looking at the few companies that were already failing and still failed after Bain Capital bought them, why not look at the many companies that Bain Capital turned around?

I apologize for the MSNBC comment, but your items listed were verbatim from a recent Obama ad, you didn't even try to change the order or wording.

also, let us never forget that the obama spending binge never happened and that government spending is at its lowest levels since the 50s.
thats from the communist wall street journal btw.

now, watch how conservatives try to bend reality to fit their arguments. but hey, i guess i shouldnt be surprised, these are the same group of idiots bleating about how "OMG 50% OF PEOPLE DONT PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX, THUS WE NEED TO TAX THE POOR PEOPLE."

it's such shallowing and crass thinking, i am seriously over here LOLing at u, but weeping for our country. America has been dead since the 70's clowns. it was devoured by the same types of people u are all trying to protect.

no jmog, bain capital made no attempts to "turn the company around", lmao. mitt romney made his living by buying companies, cutting costs (read firing people and fucking their pensions), leveraging debt against the company, compensating him and his cohorts with over 300% profit margins, and then letting the company go up in flames. But hey, what do I know? im just a guy who can read.

Sage;1212314 wrote:1. jmog, i was listening then more than i am now. i don't recall the debt being a crusade against conservatives like it is now. wasn't it bush who started the stiumulus proceedings -- which, by the way, pretty much every rational economist has said saved the situation from being WAY WORSE (and IMO, didn't go far enough).

2. it appears youre right and my memory is wrong about bush's approval ratings. *shrug* it doesn't change the fact Obama is going to win handily come November. I will take whatever sort of bets anybody wants to bet on this.

3. BG Falcons, you are an under-educated white muppet. I had my suspicions at ur username, but ur clipart GIF of a snake flag all but confirms it. plz tell me u r a tea partier so i can soundly trounce your ****ty little world views.

1. If you were listening then you would have most certainly heard conservatives (not republicans, but conservatives) complaining about the spending in the last term of Bush II.

2. Can you please post some data to prove the 'fact' that Obama is going to win? Any historical data that suggests this would be appreciated. I already posted some to give evidence that he won't win, it is now your turn.

i dont care if u dont like obama -- im not a fan of his either. (for example, his foreign policy has been abhorrent and disgusting); but if you really think millard romney is the man to lead us to the promised land, then you almost literally haven't been paying attention since our country got looted for back in 2008. Iceland through their bankers and scum like Mitt Romney in jail. We didn't do shit. And yes, I hold Bush as well as Obama accountable for this, so sorry to burst ur fatasy bubbles.

Sage;1212319 wrote:no jmog, bain capital made no attempts to "turn the company around", lmao. mitt romney made his living by buying companies, cutting costs (read firing people and ****ing their pensions), leveraging debt against the company, compensating him and his cohorts with over 300% profit margins, and then letting the company go up in flames. But hey, what do I know? im just a guy who can read.

Wow, you are really using RollingStones as a source for politics? That's laughable at best, especially since the article was an opine.

Sage;1212319 wrote:no jmog, bain capital made no attempts to "turn the company around", lmao. mitt romney made his living by buying companies, cutting costs (read firing people and fucking their pensions), leveraging debt against the company, compensating him and his cohorts with over 300% profit margins, and then letting the company go up in flames. But hey, what do I know? im just a guy who can read.

Once again you fail to understand the level of risk that PE entails. If the companies goes bust, who's pocket is empty? If the company has inefficiencies due to people having redundant tasking, what is the PE firm suppose to do? Double their salary? No, you fire them and try to save the other 10,000 jobs or so at the company.

I also don't understand why you have a problem with debt leveraging. Sometimes that's the only way to infuse needed capital into the company to grow and save money in the long run(or survive in the short run so that their is a long run). I didn't bother reading your link since its from the rolling stones and no offense to them but they are pretty clueless as well.

jmog;1212320 wrote:1. If you were listening then you would have most certainly heard conservatives (not republicans, but conservatives) complaining about the spending in the last term of Bush II.

2. Can you please post some data to prove the 'fact' that Obama is going to win? Any historical data that suggests this would be appreciated. I already posted some to give evidence that he won't win, it is now your turn.

1. great cop out. so it wasnt bush and the republican controlled senate and houses who werent against spending, but CONSERVATIVES. Yes, yes, who can forget those choir of CONSERVATIVES screaming about the federal deficit every day, as if it's something that matters in day-to-day-life. Who can forget when conservatives almost defaulted our country due to their pedantic blustering. Man. WHERE THE FUCK WAS I?

2. i dont need historical data, because what the fuck does an election from 2008 have to do with an election in 2012? You realize historical trends don't mean shit, right? http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=obama+opens+up+lead+in+swing+states&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 <---- there is some data pertaining to this years election. I know, I know -- it's numbers and science and things which conservatives like, but that there is a google news search, so feel free to find a source to ur liking, or feel free to write this all off as a "liberal media conspiracy"

Sage;1212321 wrote:i dont care if u dont like obama -- im not a fan of his either. (for example, his foreign policy has been abhorrent and disgusting); but if you really think millard romney is the man to lead us to the promised land, then you almost literally haven't been paying attention since our country got looted for back in 2008. Iceland through their bankers and scum like Mitt Romney in jail. We didn't do ****. And yes, I hold Bush as well as Obama accountable for this, so sorry to burst ur fatasy bubbles.

Sage, pay attention, you don't want to miss this.

I do not think Romney (as I have said multiple times but you must have missed it) is the answer, far from it to be honest.

However, that being said, while Romney sucks, Obama is worse. I would put Romney even worse than Bush II but not as bad as Obama.

Obama has taken the mistakes that Bush II made fiscally and made them worse.

Again, Sleeper, WHO THE FUCK IS TAKING THE RISK IF IT'S COMPANY DEBT? It's not Mitt Romney, lmao. There is no risk. That's the thing. The company that he bought went down in flames, and yet Mitt Romney skated with parachutes stitched with 1,000 dollar bills.

I wouldn't expect u to read the link, because it's a well thought out and executed article which u would have to critically think in order to create another one of ur bullshit business laws 300 lecture regurgitations.

If you think Romney is the man to lead this country, then LOL at you. Are you a millionaire? Then Mitt Romney would spit on you. He's shown it throughout his entire life. The dude is a grade-A bag of douche. I thought this was settled by the ridiculous names he gave his sons, yet here we are.

feeling small on that island u've been whittled down to? gone with u.

Sage;1212324 wrote:1. great cop out. so it wasnt bush and the republican controlled senate and houses who werent against spending, but CONSERVATIVES. Yes, yes, who can forget those choir of CONSERVATIVES screaming about the federal deficit every day, as if it's something that matters in day-to-day-life. Who can forget when conservatives almost defaulted our country due to their pedantic blustering. Man. WHERE THE **** WAS I?

2. i dont need historical data, because what the **** does an election from 2008 have to do with an election in 2012? You realize historical trends don't mean ****, right? http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=obama+opens+up+lead+in+swing+states&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 <---- there is some data pertaining to this years election. I know, I know -- it's numbers and science and things which conservatives like, but that there is a google news search, so feel free to find a source to ur liking, or feel free to write this all off as a "liberal media conspiracy"

1. You are factually incorrect, in the last 2 years of Bush II's term the republicans did not hold the House and Senate, the democrats did. Guess who technically controls spending too? The House and Senate. Guess what two years the budget was the worst under the 8 years of Bush II? The last two. So please at least get the facts straight before you post. The Ds held both legislative houses for the last 2 years of Bush II's term.

2. If the election happened right now, by the Electoral College Obama would win (if we can believe the polls), but it would be extremely close and the election is not for 5 months.

1. i dont give a shit. there was no clamoring about our national debt. there were no games of brinksmanship with our national credit rating and debt ceiling. the r's controlled everything when we railroaded our way into iraq. we also cut taxes at home for millionaires, which was the first time in american history we cut taxes during war-time. nor do i ever recall republicans wanting to go after the biggest source of pork in the american budget, the military-industry complex. this is the same party that wants to take food off the table of poor people in order to close our deficit instead of taxing people like mitt romney.

secondly, we can also look at how republican leadership has lead red states. is it any coincidence it's the conservative states that are the welfare babies in terms of tax dollars given/received from state/feds?

2. obama will win, and i will post a picture of my petrified pink penis dipped in a glass of barbeque sauce the night it happens.

Just curious Sage what do you think Obama has done or will do in a second term that is so great for the country?

Sage;1212314 wrote:1. jmog, i was listening then more than i am now. i don't recall the debt being a crusade against conservatives like it is now. wasn't it bush who started the stiumulus proceedings -- which, by the way, pretty much every rational economist has said saved the situation from being WAY WORSE (and IMO, didn't go far enough).

And, yet, the stimulus has gone away but the spending keeps going up. Explain to me how you have one-time spending of $800B and STILL spend more the following year? Where is all the money going? It's almost as if they walked to the end of the bridge to nowhere and just dumped all that cash into the river.

bigdaddy2003;1212372 wrote:Just curious Sage what do you think Obama has done or will do in a second term that is so great for the country?

He'll be the first re-elected black POTUS?

gut;1212377 wrote:And, yet, the stimulus has gone away but the spending keeps going up. Explain to me how you have one-time spending of $800B and STILL spend more the following year? Where is all the money going? It's almost as if they walked to the end of the bridge to nowhere and just dumped all that cash into the river.

Naw...The Porkulus is working. All you need to do is drink the Kool Aid and give Barry 4 more years.

Sage;1212338 wrote:1. i dont give a ****. there was no clamoring about our national debt. there were no games of brinksmanship with our national credit rating and debt ceiling..

Perhaps because we've increased an already troubling large debt something like 67% in just over 3 years, and that's before Obamakare even kicks in.

As for the debt-ceiling, Harry Reid was against raiising it before he was calling people terrorists for opposing doing it again. Lost in all this is the reason behind a debt ceiling in the first place - namely as a check & balance (lacking a balanced budget amendment) to a gubmit writing blank checks it can't cash.