The Greatest Freudian Slip in History

[Yssup Rider]

Typical (fill in the blank) response from a card-carrying (fill in the blank) who believes in (fill in the blanks).

Why don't you boys just use a template?

And I'd classify myself as an American. An American veteran. An American taxpayer. An American voter. An American parent who wants America to be as good for his children/grandchildren as it was for him.

NEXT?

[CuteOldGuy]

Are you saying, then, that all of us should agree with you? What if we don't?

[Whirlaway]

There hasn't been a recession in the Washington DC region; some of the richest counties in America are those that surround Washington DC., the lowest unempolyment rates are found in the counties surrounding Washington DC....get the picture ?

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

...and the truth shall set you free. Eight of the top ten polticians in Washington DC are democrats. People like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi married it and took advantage of their offices to enrich themselves. Bill Clinton and Hillary talked about the Wall Street paper pushers and then made $109 million in the ten years after leaving office.

[CuteOldGuy]

That's because the movers and shakers in DC don't live in DC.

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

There is often more truth in humor than one can imagine.

Money is exactly what Romney and his ilk stand for.

. . . Of course, he may have to fire your ass to maximize profits for himself, but business is business, you understand!

Are you saying that a business which is not making a profit should keep all of its employees? What if firing some allows the business to recover and the rest can keep their jobs. Then after the recovery the business can then hire more people again. Is it better to not fire anyone so as not to appear to be greedy and ultimately have the whole business fail? Then everyone is out of a job. Rationally I would save the jobs of as many people as possible. What would you do?

[CuteOldGuy]

There are some people, primarily those who have never owned a business, that think that the primary purpose of a business is to provide jobs. They dislike profit, but fail to understand that without profit, the business fails, and everyone employed by the business is then out of work.

Businesses are in business to make money. When they make money, they add to society by providing jobs, paying taxes, and providing goods and services that are in demand. When they don't make money, none of that happens.

[BigLouie]

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Are you saying, then, that all of us should agree with you? What if we don't?

You know that is exactly what I am thinking every time I read one of your and Whirlaway's post.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

You know that is exactly what I am thinking every time I read one of your and Whirlaway's post.

It's hard to imagine that you even agree and believe your own posts.

[Fast Gunn]

I will grant you that business is generally a brutal affair.

I will further concede that Bain Capital and Mitt Romney were indeed successful at what they were doing provided that only making money is your sole measure of success.

That is by and large the way that business operates.

Business is like a freight train barreling down the track and delivering the goods, but without any soul or humanity.

My argument is that being successful at a business that buys ailing companies and fires people like so many flies just to make the business profitable is NOT the same as being successful at running a country.

President Obama was organizing communities helping them to raise their standard of living while Mitt Romney was out buying and firing people to make a profit.

. . . We are talking about two starkly different mind-sets, but which is better suited to run a country is plain to see to anyone with any objectivity.

Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Are you saying that a business which is not making a profit should keep all of its employees? What if firing some allows the business to recover and the rest can keep their jobs. Then after the recovery the business can then hire more people again. Is it better to not fire anyone so as not to appear to be greedy and ultimately have the whole business fail? Then everyone is out of a job. Rationally I would save the jobs of as many people as possible. What would you do?

[joe bloe]

It's annoying the way liberals criticize rich people for supposedly loving money. The liberals love other people's money. They love taking it away.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

It's annoying the way liberals criticize rich people for supposedly loving money. The liberals love other people's money. They love taking it away.

It all works out the libs criticize the rich the rich criticize the poor.And the middle class is the new poor.

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

I will

My argument is that being successful at a business that buys ailing companies and fires people like so many flies just to make the business profitable is NOT the same as being successful at running a country.

President Obama was organizing communities helping them to raise their standard of living while Mitt Romney was out buying and firing people to make a profit.

. . . We are talking about two starkly different mind-sets, but which is better suited to run a country is plain to see to anyone with any objectivity.

True two starkly different mindsets... Neither of their backgrounds make them qualified to run a country such as the United States. The qualifications for that are to maintain liberties. Both of them will stomp on liberties to further their own political agenda. I would much rather have a guy who would veto everything that congress passes during his entire presidency unless it repeals something which is not useful, or is a balanced budget. That is what is better to run a country. An individual like that is not putting his ideology or his donors wishes first like either Obama or Romney do or would do.

[Fast Gunn]

I will agree that Liberty is important.

It is in fact, very important.

However, that is not the only criteria to measure the quality of a President.

I believe that what is more important are the entire set of values that define a President.

Is his primary goal to make big business and the wealthy more wealthy or is his driving concern the well-being of the entire country.

. . . I believe that President Obama is primarily concerned about the well-being of the country, but Romney like most Republicans are more concerned about big business and amassing wealth at the expense of the middle and lower classes.

[fetishfreak]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

. . . I believe that President Obama is primarily concerned about the well-being of the country, but Romney like most Republicans are more concerned about big business and amassing wealth at the expense of the middle and lower classes.
[/COLOR]

Yet nothing that he has done can be said to have helped the well being of the country. Intentions, however good, do not remove his responsibility for the results of his actions.

His actions as president have not helped the country. I do not believe that Romney is a good choice... but we know that Obama has failed, all good intentions aside.