Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

Too easy! Thanks, Citizens United!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_evS-T-c35M#


Oh. Before you ask. It's a movie from Newt's gang, Winning Our Future. Or should it be Whining Our Future?  ;D

I'm really not seeing your point.  Did Romney want the government to ban this ad?  And more to the point, do you think the ad should be banned?

This is what is going to happen. The corporations are going to abuse the ruling that they can spend a ton of money and put out any kind of shit they can think of as an attack ad.
The candidates are going to whine about it, and some of the candidates are going to be an elected official back in Washington, since most make a career out of politics.
Those butt hurt candidates are going to pass laws to forbid, the yellow dog Youtube videos and campaign ads.

Who knew these people/corporations would take something and abuse it? Never saw that one coming! I am no longer mad about the Supreme Court ruling since the corporations are going to hang themselves and it will be changed in a couple of years.

Bingo! It's hilarious that they never thought their own dirty tricks could be used against themselves!

Meanwhile, OUCH! (http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2012/01/when_mitt_romney_came_to_town.php)

Of course Limpballs is denouncing the video. Google Bain Capital and Clear Channel. Limpballs knows he can't say boo because he would no longer be able to afford his new wife and his Oxys without clear channel.

 

Hah! I did! Check out the comments here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831290/posts

These guys are scared shitless! ;D

Ouch #2!

This guy's going to be the Republican nominee! Tee Hee!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_mr6yQkj04&feature=player_embedded

I glad this is finally becoming part of the discourse, even if I'm not so sure Mitt's opponents are genuinely concerned with this type of capitalism...or just piling on with something that resonates across all political affiliations.

We've all been screaming about this since before the collapse and capitalism was treated as sacrosanct in all manifestations and trying to have debates or conversations were summarily dismissed as everything from Marxists, Socialist, Anti-Capitalism, Unpatriotic...to even treasonous.  It's been maddening to say the least.

So the real question now becomes...do we/will we actually address this in a realistic manner or will this just be allowed to breath long enough to act as attacks against Romney, to be drown out again in divisive rhetoric when it's served it's purpose?

I, for one, hope it's embraced for REAL discussions/contemplation...

...and that titties will somehow be involved.

I heard some of the meltdown with Perry and Newt.  I think we may actually see him stroke out on air.

If there is a God...

Mitt has already decided that any talk of that kind should be done in 'quiet rooms'.. ya know, with him and his elite crowd because if we lowly peons are a part of a discussion on wall street,the economy,wealth.. etc  we'd just get jealous.. so this kind of conversation is to be done outside of our presence..we're just too envious to handle that kind of dialog..

I meant to post that bit about the "quiet rooms". I guess the ignorant, poor masses are unqualified to discuss the elite rich republicans. Comments like that are why we have the Occupy movement.


Sure would be nice if someone around here put an end to that too... ;)

Still waiting for an answer...

Oh! Sorry!

Why would Romney want the government to ban the ad? It's legal now!


Why? It's legal now!!!!! Not like the CU 90 minute ad was! I sure don't want to see the ad banned! Me (or, is it I?) and a few thousand friends have been posting it everywhere!

Sarah 12!

Finally, an ad you don't want to see banned!  Too bad it's not based on love of free expression or the first amendment, but heh, at least we can agree on one thing!

I expect to see some King of GM ads this fall, since the King of GM forced on GM a reorganization (which you have been wildly supportive of) that resulted in the loss of 30,000 jobs from GM.

All hail the King!

(http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2001/kinggeorge.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/43/kinggeorge.jpg/)

GM's laying off 30k? When? 2005?

Perhaps your comrades at Newsmax got the numbers switched (http://jobsforveterans.military.com/357/auto-industry-30000-jobs-projected/)? Most likely, they probably use the Fox graphics guys.


From what I hear they're still hiring, reopening plants and selling more cars than they have in years.

Thanks King Obama!

http://popculturedoneright.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,1050.msg10301.html#msg10301

Actually, I got my numbers from the New York Times.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/auto_industry/index.html (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/auto_industry/index.html)

Really Howey, you're actually trying to pass off projected jobs as actual jobs?

That would be deceptive if it wasn't so obvious!   I guess this pile of inaccuracy you'll count in your "win" column?

Man it's like shooting fish in a barrel...

WTF? So you're using an updated  article from 2010, two years ago? Scared to find anything more recent? Nevahmind...Didja know the 30k jobs you cited were also from Ford? Who didn't get a bailout???

From your article:

Ok! (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20111119/BIZ/111190348)


More from the WSJ: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513604577140440852581080.html)


Want some more, lilHiro?

From McClatchey: (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/12/20/133694/us-auto-industry-shuts-door-on.html)


Now I see why you had to go back four years for bad news. It was Dubya time!

uh.. what?

from your link


Tougher competition was only one of G.M.'s problems. In 2005, it stunned the auto world by losing $10.4 billion. It embarked on a reorganization plan that included plant closings and the elimination of 30,000 jobs. G.M. maintained that its turnaround program was showing results, but in the second quarter of 2008, it reported a loss of $15.5 billion (which followed a $3.3 billion first-quarter loss) and announced additional job cuts.

that loss was in 2005.. so why do you have a photo of Obama as King George instead of GWB?


4 in the "I guess this pile of inaccuracy you'll count in your "win" column?"

I was interested in how many workers lost their jobs due to the reorganization of GM.  That took place in 2009.  So what’s wrong with using a 2010 article?  If I had wanted to spend more time on it, I would have looked for a source from 2009.

And no, I didn’t confuse the numbers with the Ford numbers!  You are so on the wrong track!


That point, although valid, had nothing to do with why I posted this information on GM in this particular thread and wasn’t relevant to the point I’m making.  I want you to think about what you think my point is and why I posted it in this thread.

And of course more demagoguery from you!


OK I can see you still don’t know why I posted this in this thread!  You many need more than a few moments to figure that out!



You, ekg are correct!  I did get the wrong numbers, and you accurately saw where I got them.  So you get a cookie.  Howey doesn’t since he thought I got the numbers from the Ford section when I did get them from the GM section, but you are correct that I copied the wrong numbers.  The correct numbers  (from that same section) are 21,000 jobs.

Now, I could wait and wait to see if you guys could figure out on your own why I posted this GM info in this particular thread, but I think that since I’ve emphasized that throughout this post you probably have all the pieces you need to put the puzzle together.

OK well Howey was going in the wrong direction but I’ve given enough clues now.  Any guesses?

What? That you're Japanese? Or that you hate American auto companies? Of course, it may not be either, since your intention is to "not make Obama look bad".


Oh. I knew where you're going with this. You're trying to tell us that Obama was a venture capitalist who bought and sold companies and enjoyed firing the workers, just like Mitt!

Except he didn't. #1, the majority of the bailout came from Bush, Obama just added to it out of TARP, secondly, many of the companies Mitt fucked over (well, actually the employees he enjoyed firing) just ceased to exist, and thirdly, in your desire to "make Obama look good", you don't mention anything at all about the benefits of the bailout; like how many jobs it saved (http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/bankruptcy.pdf). That's "more than 1 million jobs in the car industry, supply chain, and communities where auto workers spend their paychecks".

Nor do you make mention of the fact that upon emerging from bankruptcy, GM added 45,000 jobs. I believe that's 15k more than were lost (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/one_year_later_autos_report.pdf). See page 4.

Not to mention my earlier post about the booming auto business last year, projected to boom even more this year.

So, unfortunately, the dessimation of the auto industry didn't happen. Unlike the dessimation of thousands of lives of folks fired by Mitt and his greedy partners.

Your point? FAIL!

Just kidding, lilMike.  :D

Oh I knew why you posted it here..I just didn't know why you posted the wrong information... but I'll answer you anyway, it's because you're selling  the 'Mitt had to restructure companies at Bain to make them more successful the same way Obama did with GM"  line... well you go on with your bad self.. too bad it's apples and oranges, since I would bet Bain did this and fired a whole lot more people than 21,000..

but hey look, you're finally a Mitt-man. I'm happy to see you get behind your Presidential candidate. You never struck me as his kind of guy, but you do waffle a lot so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at your conversion..

so you finally admit the bailout worked? Good.

He can't support  Paul anymore since the Libertarians have been outed. It's much easier to support a nincompoop than a racist.

I don't know that Paul is a racist.. I think he's more of  "you should be able to serve who you want, it's your business not the gov't".. and that's not from a racist mentality, it's from a guy-living-on-a-mountain-with-1000-cases-of-MRE's-waiting-for-the gov't-takeover mentality..

he can't support Paul because he's not a true libertarian.. he's ok with giving the president any power he needs to fight wars, even if that power is illegal wiretapping..along with fighting wars,illegal or otherwise.... you can't believe in that and call yourself a Ron Paul libertarian..

Demagoguery



Sometimes the Socratic method can work, albeit only partially.

So yes, you’ve made the connection between Obama restructuring GM and Bain taking over and restructuring companies.  In both cases, employees lost their jobs during the restructuring, with the hope that the firms could be saved and restored to profitability.  So Romney and Obama cut jobs for exactly the same reason.

Sometimes it’s just quicker to directly just tell you the truth, but on occasion I try to see if you can parse that out yourselves.  It’s difficult to get through your partisan blinders though.

wow.. you really do think that highly of yourself don't you?

but this..

So Romney and Obama cut jobs for exactly the same reason.

hilarious... But coming from a Romney man? Predictable..

btw, how many jobs did Romney cut anyway? We know Obama's is 21,000.. would you like to match Mitt's up with that number? and are you saying every one was done for the same reason GM's were done?

Gee. They're teaching you the big words in the asylum, aren't they?



Talk about missing a point!

Again. A n d  I ' l l  s a y  t h i s  r e a l  s l o w.......................................

Obama did not bail out the automakers. That was Bush (http://detroit.about.com/od/bigthreebailout/a/auto_bailout.htm).



Of course, the Obama administration had to administer the loans. Unlike many of Mitt's companies, they didn't go belly up and as I've show you 45k, more than the number you cited, have returned to work. Not to mention (again) the success of 2011 and projected success of 2012.

Mitt's companies enjoyed a bankruptcy rate over twice of other companies and never rehired all those thousands of workers fired.

Most of all, and most importantly, I don't recall Obama making 190 million out of firing people, did he?

Eh, not really.  It only seems that way in comparison.


I don't know how many Mitt cut.  If you're interested that might be a good project for you, but the exact number wouldn't really change the point.  Unless you are arguing that those 21,000 workers lost their jobs for some other reason than the reorganization of GM.  I thought the article made that point.

Howey, I swear, ya kill me!  "Talk about missing a point!"  HAAA!

Ahem, sorry, but that was just too funny!  No, I didn't miss the point, you apparently did once again.  I was referring to the reorganization of GM, not the bailouts, although bailouts were part of the reorganization, that had nothing to do with Bush.  The reorganization plan was all Obama.

Thanks for the laugh though!

Enjoy the veal!

And rejoice in King Obama's great job in turning around the auto industry!

The lesson?  Throw enough cash at something and you can keep it afloat!

You didn't have to go to Harvard to figure that one out though.

Again...Bush threw the cash. Obama saved the industry. All hail King Obama!

if you really can't see the difference, then you have to take off the (R) glasses..

here, I smoked pot.. even sold a joint once.. Does that me Pablo Escobar?   

You're saying it does and I'm telling you, you're uber-partisan..

This is why I tell you, you can't see grey.. because you can't see how selling a single joint is not the same as being the most prolific drug  lord ever.. or how restructuring one company and 21,000 jobs is different than doing it day in and day out for 15 years..

it's the reason I tire of any discussion with you.. I simply can't talk to someone who is as religious as you in their (R) belief.. sorry, not trying to insulting, just informative..

BUsh went to Yale.

Seems like those Harvard graduates are a lot smarter (http://www.freep.com/article/20120119/BUSINESS0101/120119015/GM-again-the-world-s-largest-automaker?odyssey=nav|head) than Yalies!


Let's give King Obama credit for the drop in Michigan's unemployment rate  (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/99822/michigan-unemployment-gm-chrysler-obama-auto-detroit-bailout) while we're at it!


*Cue lilMike posting a link from the Bush years about how shitty GM is and blaming everything on Obama.

Your example only makes sense if you think Obama made a mistake in having the reorganization plan for GM.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were in favor of it?  If you think it was a good idea for Obama to restructure a company, why is it wrong when Romney does it?

Oh, maybe it's just the cash.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop)

Bain gives more campaign money to Democrats than it does to Republican

Democrats have accepted more political donations than Republicans from executives at Bain Capital, complicating the left’s plan to attack Mitt Romney for his record at the private-equity firm.

During the last three election cycles, Bain employees have given Democratic candidates and party committees more than $1.2 million. The vast majority of that sum came from senior executives.

Republican candidates and party committees raised over $480,000 from senior Bain executives during that time period.

Recipients include Democratic senators facing tough reelection races this year, such as Jon Tester (Mont.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Bill Nelson (Fla.).
The Hill reviewed contributions made from the 2008, 2010 and 2012 cycles.

Romney has collected more money from Bain Capital employees than any federal candidate since the beginning of 2007, amassing more than $166,000 in contributions. He took more than $84,000 from Bain employees in the first three quarters of 2011.

But President Obama received a sizable share as well. He has accepted more than $80,000 from Bain employees since the beginning of 2007. Bain Capital employees gave $27,500 to Obama during the first three quarters of 2011.

I guess the Bain EMPLOYEES felt a little guilt. They probablyy also thought Mittens was paying for his campaign with his hidden offshore accounts. ;)

if he's as honest and 'non partisan' as he pretends he'll have nothing but good things to say.. my guess is he'll throw 1/2 a compliment and the a big ole 'But...'

how in the hell does my example make sense only if Obama made a mistake.. You're claiming what Obama once did and what Romney did for 10 years are the same thing.. My example is highlight how they are not the same in any way, you think there is no difference between me selling one joint and Pablo Escobar who sold billions.. you're blinders can only see black and white, again! You cannot see there is a difference in my single joint sale and Escobar's extreme drug sale..

and this is where you've changed since it's Obama in office and why any discussion with you is about as fun and informative as watching paint dry. This hard-line radical stance you have shuts down any kind of forward moving conversation..

No, your example between Escobar and you selling a joint doesn't even apply.  That has nothing to do with this issue, because implicit in that example is that Obama made a mistake, just a smaller one than Romney.  If I recall (and you'll correct me if I'm wrong!) you supported the GM bailout and the Obama reorganization plan for GM, which led to 21,000 workers losing their jobs.  Now, do you think that was a mistake, just not as big as Romney's firing of workers when reorganizing their companies (and I'd like to know if Romney got anywhere near firing 21,000 workers)?  Or... do you think Obama's reorganization of GM, including the firing of those workers, were vital to saving the company?

For someone who professes to be smart, you ain't.



See? That's the 21k back plus some more. Why won't you give Obama credit?


a. Romney's actions were not to create jobs, they were to destroy jobs by restructuring companies. And, mostly, weren't effective.

b. Romney, in his own words, has stated he was in the business to make money (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/romney-was-a-businessman-not-a-job-creator-2012-01-19). Not jobs.



Soo....ya see lilSweetcheeks: Romney didn't care about the jobs or the little guy, he cared about the money. Obama, by restructuring GM, managed to restore the jobs lost plus thousands more and GM made a shitload of money on top of that.

Winning!

It has nothing to do with a 'mistake'.. my example is dead on, you're just caught being foolish and you're incapable of moving your radical position forward. This whole nonsense started out because you thought you were being obtuse and cute by bringing 'the King of GM". You were comparing Obama's single restructure with Romney's 10 years of of gobbling up companies and selling the bits and pieces. My example highlights the ridiculousness  of that position.. it matters not whether Obama was right and Romney was wrong.. those black and white, hard-line positions are in you, not me. You think neither is wrong,you think both are equal.

answer this question. just the question as it's asked.. not as seen through 'lil mike's radical filter'.. I smoked pot.. even sold a joint once.. Does that me Pablo Escobar?  

yes or no, it's a simple question.


you know full-well that I supported the bailout.. that is not the issue at hand right now so stop trying to change the subject on this line of discussion.

and btw, your rose-colored glasses are foggy if you really feel that in all Romney's time not even 21,000 people lost their jobs.. here's just one example of what Bain did..


He fucked up the lives of 750 people in one fell swoop and then had the gov't bail him out while his company still pocketed millions of tax payer's money when he was bailed out. That's just a single transaction in his 10,000 transactions and 750 investments..  Bain Capital wasn't a 'job-creating' venture, it was a capital venture, they were out to make massive profits, not job creation..

face it, your pick is a shyster plain and simple... but like the Weekly Standard says..


too bad you're in lock-step with the 1st paragraph instead of the 2nd.. but you're not really a conservative and you always follow the establishment don't you.

When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons.  You're employees are counting on you to have their best interests as part of the overall reasoning for success.  If they're viewed as just a necessary evil that can be expunged if it's more profitable to just gut and collapse their workplace for resale, insurance money, bankruptcy...you're in it for the wrong reasons.

We've decided success is the size of your bank account (or off shore holdings) and that gives preferential treatment to the bottom line, even when by any measure, the bottom line in many cases, is already astronomical...BUT...there's more to be had.  If you're not helping the worker, then you're helping yourself and...you're in it for the wrong reasons.  People should not be stepping stones with expiration dates as they help you accumulate mass wealth.

It really is such a fuckin sad travesty that we've let wealth define every other aspect of humanity now...fuckin sad.

No.  And it's a dumb question, and you know it.

But that's nothing compared to you saying that, "it matters not whether Obama was right and Romney was wrong."  You keep dodging the issue.  Purposefully.  That's why you would rather talk about selling a joint then whether it was better to cut those jobs and save the the company than not.  I get it.


What is the mechanism for saving those 750 jobs?  Your excerpt seemed to make clear that the company wasn't salvageable.  So what should have been done?  Just like there wasn't a path that would allow those 21,000 jobs to be saved at GM, there wasn't a path to to save those 750.  There have been a lot of job losses in the steel industry since the 70's.  In fact, the US steel industry is in good shape now, in spite of government help.  I'll link this for you, not that it will matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/worldbusiness/23iht-steel.1.18064775.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/worldbusiness/23iht-steel.1.18064775.html?pagewanted=all)

Yes! and so is your comparison.. and you know it as well, why won't you simply admit it and move on.

Obama (or me), is not the same as Mitt (or Escobar).. duh! So why are you trying to put a shiney-gloss on Mitt by making Obama's actions equal to his own?  Just own it already..




staying on topic and not letting you change the conversation because you're uncomfortable is not dodging..  In some cases it is better to cut some to save the whole, I will never say differently.. but not in all cases... and you can't say that that was Mitt's goal each and every time, that would be bullshit.. his goal, his only goal was to make money. to get the investment back in triplicate, if cutting a few jobs to save the whole would do that, that's what he did.. if killing them all and selling the pieces was more profitable, well he did that as well... do you deny any of that?

none of which is comparable to what Obama did. Had he done it to 100's of corporations then you could make your comparison.. But he didn't, he did it once and to a single company that asked for the Gov't help... and for that help, they had to do what the legal minds of the gov't said to do.. and that was lose 21,000 jobs.. which in the end created thousands more and put GM back in the number one spot... and speaking of dodging, you were the one who was anti- this bailout, you would have let the auto industry die taking millions of jobs with it... do you care to admit your brilliant assessment was wrong?



and? I'm not doubting you or going after Romney for what he did.. Not right now, not in this thread.. and my issue would be the bail out and broken promises, not necessarily the lost jobs.. steel work is rough, and many mills closed...  I'm not micro-focused on those jobs the way you are.. It was just a point that answered your incredibly naive statement of "and I'd like to know if Romney got anywhere near firing 21,000 workers".. it was an example out of his 10,000... if you would like to talk about the steel industry throughout the 70' until the present, have at it in a new thread... my only reason for bring it up to counter that ridiculous statement of yours

re:that article.. it turned out wrong didn't it... all that doom and gloom didn't pan out the way it said.. the bailout worked out the way the 'partisans' said it did..

This is what saving the auto-industry did..

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-18/auto-plants-at-capacity-buoying-all-parts-of-u-s-economy-cars.html

and that is why I was for it. Just this one industry alone helps create more jobs throughout the system.. and letting it fail, at the time, would have crippled this country in ways we'd never seen before..

This is the difference it what Obama did and what Mitt does at Bain. Obama's goal wasn't to make millions, it was to save jobs, thus helping to save the US and world's economy. Mitt's goal is to make millions, if a job or two gets saved in the process, ok..the same way if 100 are lost in the process is OK...  his intended goal is to repay the investment in millions.. and no one, not even he, can say differently..

This doesn't make Obama some 'god' of the working man... this had to be done in order to keep the country from real devastation. But to compare what Mitt did to Obama is patently retarded.. and for Mitt(or anyone else) to pretend his goal at Bain was altruistic is utter bullshit.

Wow...from your linky




HOW DARE OBAMA DO THIS! HOW DARE THE SOCIALIST KENYAN TRY TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY BY CREATING *SHUDDER* JOBS!


See, ekg....It's like this. We can trot out link after link proving lilMittens wrongo, yet in his obstinate refusal to accept he's wrongo, he'll sputter and sputter and sputter and pull more links from 2005, or 2008, or whenever to "prove" Obama has failed us.

We won't convince him of anything, as manly as that would be for him to swallow his pride, pull up his britches, and say; "Yeah, you guys are right. Obama saved the automobile industry."

It'll never happen. Not as long as there's a BLACK MAN leading our country, cuz that's what it's all about!

He's the right's boogeyman and he's scared them into insanity.  :-\

OK I guess the Socratic method doesn't work.  I totally misunderestimated the ideological blinders you choose to wear.

Basically you seem to think that the primary and most important difference is motive.  Mitt was trying to make money, Obama was trying to insure a continued flow of union money.  Mitt was trying to gain personally, Obama was trying to gain for his party.

OK got it.

As to your comment about my opposition to the bailout, you're damn right I was opposed to it and I am still opposed to it.  For reasons that I've already enumerated multiple times (although all of those reasons have mind have most likely vanished into the ether now).  The bail out/ Obama reorganization plan didn't work any better than allowing Chapter 11 to continue.  Based on your previous comments, you thought that Chapter 11 would lead to a liquidation of GM; it would just vanish as a company, and I've never been able, despite all evidence, to convince you otherwise.  My "brilliant assessment" was correct, and I doubt I'll have reason to change my mind, at least until the stock price gets to the break even point (about 52; it was at 25 on Friday).  So far, it's still a loser for the tax payer and I still doubt it was reorganized enough to be on a firm footing.  That was the purpose of the Chapter 11.

you're simply unable or unwilling to see how retarded you're being.. I am not Escobar, Obama is not Romney.. you can try all you want to put that square peg into the circular hole but it won't fit. That's not me wearing blinders, that's just reality..