Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:First of all, I do not at all blame Romney for what occurs in this video because he almost certainly has nothing to do with it, I just couldn't think of a better place to put it. This is more of an "Election scandal" than a "Romney scandal":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdk55dLsFhc

Night Strike wrote:Or it was simply a clause of a contract that they forgot to have removed.

notyou2 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Or it was simply a clause of a contract that they forgot to have removed.

You sure do have a lot of excuses. Or perhaps you simply exhibit blind republican faith.

Night Strike wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Or it was simply a clause of a contract that they forgot to have removed.

You sure do have a lot of excuses. Or perhaps you simply exhibit blind republican faith.

Nope, just correcting idiotic attack lines.

“Bain Capital is an investment partnership which was formed to invest in startup companies and ongoing companies, then to take an active hand in managing them and hopefully, five to eight years later, to harvest them at a significant profit.”

Juan_Bottom wrote:

“Bain Capital is an investment partnership which was formed to invest in startup companies and ongoing companies, then to take an active hand in managing them and hopefully, five to eight years later, to harvest them at a significant profit.”

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

“Bain Capital is an investment partnership which was formed to invest in startup companies and ongoing companies, then to take an active hand in managing them and hopefully, five to eight years later, to harvest them at a significant profit.”

Where's the scandal? If they're gaining profits from a company 5-8 years after buying them up, that means they've made it into a successful business. Profits are good things.

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

“Bain Capital is an investment partnership which was formed to invest in startup companies and ongoing companies, then to take an active hand in managing them and hopefully, five to eight years later, to harvest them at a significant profit.”

Where's the scandal? If they're gaining profits from a company 5-8 years after buying them up, that means they've made it into a successful business. Profits are good things.

Profits are not necessarily good things if they come at the expense of a large number of other people. They are merely good things to those that profit. Which is pretty key to Romney's Bain problem, and his difficulty winning-over people, no?

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

“Bain Capital is an investment partnership which was formed to invest in startup companies and ongoing companies, then to take an active hand in managing them and hopefully, five to eight years later, to harvest them at a significant profit.”

Where's the scandal? If they're gaining profits from a company 5-8 years after buying them up, that means they've made it into a successful business. Profits are good things.

Profits are not necessarily good things if they come at the expense of a large number of other people. They are merely good things to those that profit. Which is pretty key to Romney's Bain problem, and his difficulty winning-over people, no?

At whose expense are those profits coming from? If Bain Capital wasn't gaining profits from those companies, those employees would not have their current jobs. The only "problem" is that this president has succeeded in demonizing "profit" and fails to realize that it's a desire for profit that allows businesses to succeed. If there was no profit to be gained from running a business, that business would not be open and would not be employing individuals or selling products.

Symmetry wrote:Contrariwise, who is the profit going to? I know you're a bit of a religious fanatic when it comes to Obama, but do you really want to stand by your statement that he's "demonizing" profit?

AndyDufresne wrote:I've seen the demon Obama. Just wait til he turns the world over to his father, Satan. Wait, that is the plot of Rosemary's Baby I think.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I've seen the demon Obama. Just wait til he turns the world over to his father, Satan. Wait, that is the plot of Rosemary's Baby I think.


--Andy

Night Strike wrote: More pointless spam.

Night Strike wrote:Obama demonizes profits.

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Obama demonizes profits.

The sad decline of the American republican party in a nutshell.

Conveniently available as a bumper sticker for people who like stickers.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Obama demonizes profits.

The sad decline of the American republican party in a nutshell.

Conveniently available as a bumper sticker for people who like stickers.

When has Obama ever said that businesses making a profit is good for the economy? He thinks all those businesses and "rich people" aren't paying their "fair share" and must turn more money over to the government.

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Obama demonizes profits.

The sad decline of the American republican party in a nutshell.

Conveniently available as a bumper sticker for people who like stickers.

When has Obama ever said that businesses making a profit is good for the economy? He thinks all those businesses and "rich people" aren't paying their "fair share" and must turn more money over to the government.

I ain't quite the psychic demon catcher you propose to be, so I can't make the predictions that the president of the United States is secretly demonic.

Plus, I ain't quite as religious as you.

But anyway, crazy and religious as you've gotten on this issue, perhaps you can tone the rhetoric down and admit that Obama ain't against profit (possibly the weirdest accusation I've seen leveled against him).

Night Strike wrote:Amazing how liberals twist and distort. I never once said Obama was a demon or anything demonic. I simply said that he "demonizes" profits, which means to belittle, characterize as evil, etc.

If Obama's reelection were so safe, why do you need to twist and distort anything his opponents say and everything that has happened this month?

AndyDufresne wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Amazing how liberals twist and distort. I never once said Obama was a demon or anything demonic. I simply said that he "demonizes" profits, which means to belittle, characterize as evil, etc.

If Obama's reelection were so safe, why do you need to twist and distort anything his opponents say and everything that has happened this month?

Demonize is one of those words that really just looks silly out of original religious context.


--Andy

Night Strike wrote:And yes, Obama demonizes profits.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Obama demonizes profits.

The sad decline of the American republican party in a nutshell.

Conveniently available as a bumper sticker for people who like stickers.

When has Obama ever said that businesses making a profit is good for the economy? He thinks all those businesses and "rich people" aren't paying their "fair share" and must turn more money over to the government.

I ain't quite the psychic demon catcher you propose to be, so I can't make the predictions that the president of the United States is secretly demonic.

Plus, I ain't quite as religious as you.

But anyway, crazy and religious as you've gotten on this issue, perhaps you can tone the rhetoric down and admit that Obama ain't against profit (possibly the weirdest accusation I've seen leveled against him).

Amazing how liberals twist and distort. I never once said Obama was a demon or anything demonic. I simply said that he "demonizes" profits, which means to belittle, characterize as evil, etc.

If Obama's reelection were so safe, why do you need to twist and distort anything his opponents say and everything that has happened this month?

Woodruff wrote:Your desperation is palpable. You do realize that blindly supporting Romney and attacking Obama in this forum isn't really going to affect the reality that Obama is going to win the election, don't you?

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Your desperation is palpable. You do realize that blindly supporting Romney and attacking Obama in this forum isn't really going to affect the reality that Obama is going to win the election, don't you?

I do not subscribe to the belief that it's a foregone conclusion that Obama will win. And it's not a blind support of Romney. I know that he has had success in each of the places he has been in the past and that the current president is actively working to harm our country. I did not think he was the best conservative in the primary, but he's the only person even remotely conservative running for president. And with a conservative Congress, he will actually sign conservative pieces of legislation instead of being an automatic veto. Romney is a "trust but verify" candidate.