jjamie12

Then you are really not paying attention. Enjoy the soundbites.

We've been through this before. Why is it so hard for everyone to believe Bain when they say that he left Bain in '99, they finished off the separation agreement in 2002, and in the interim he was still a signatory to certain deals? Does that just seem off-the-wall crazy to you? And if that does seem off-the-wall crazy to you, I'd like you to consider: What reason would anyone have for lying about this?

Except #2 doesn't have to hunt 16 hours a day to feed the 2 of them. He hunts 8 hours a day to feed himself. The other guy's dad died years ago and gave him a liftime supply of food. You don't even understand your own arguments.

Welcome to the plight of investors who receive dividend income. You don't support raising the capital gains tax, do you?

I don't really know the answer to that question, frankly. In general and on principle, I say "No". I'm not sure what the economic ramifications for those areas would be and whether or not the the interference in the market is economically justified. Since the government is involved, my guess is that they've effed this up, for sure and any 'good work' they were doing from before has long since gone the other way.

That makes sense to me, and is probably right... I just wanted to point out that it wasn't government handing out money to people who weren't smart enough to buy insurance.

Just as a clarification -- I *think* what happens is that "Private Flood Insurance" in certain areas is extremely expensive, so the Feds subsidize State insurance to these areas, and that the amount of that subsidy is 'rich people welfare'. It's not 'insurance for people who don't buy it', it's that people in these areas have the option to purchase insurance from the state at rates lower than they otherwise would in the private sector. I think.

Thanks to, basically, the very same people who have now 'fixed' that for you. We'll see how it goes.

From your link: "[A] spokeswoman for Bain maintained that Romney was not involved in the Stericycle deal in 1999, saying that he had "resigned" months before the stock purchase was negotiated. The spokeswoman noted that following his resignation Romney remained only "a signatory on certain documents," until his separation agreement with Bain was finalized in 2002. And Bain issued this statement: "Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies since that time." I have no reason to believe that Bain is 'lying' about this, so I consider Romney's ex-Bain date to be February of '99. Do you really find it so hard to believe that?

It's possible I'm a moron (and please let me know where I've gone wrong if I'm being obtuse), but I've been referencing the Mother Jones piece by David Corn dated 7/2/12, which is the first link in the first post of this thread. Should I be looking somewhere else? Edit: Now I've read a piece by David Corn on 7/3/12 (linked through from the original piece) that is really just a re-hash of what he's already stated. Several 'fact-checker' sites have basically said "David, you're wrong", as he admits in the article. Except he keeps the argument going by citing 'newspaper reports from the Boston Globe that say MR is 'taking a leave of absence' rather than resigning (as if newspaper accounts are never wrong). Either way, I'll pose the question again: Is it really so unreasonable to assume that Mitt Romney remained as a signer to certain documents from the time he 'resigned' in '99 until his separation agreement was negotiated and executed in '02, as has been claimed repeatedly by Bain and the Romney campaign? Is that really so hard to believe?

I'm referring to the Mother Jones piece in the first post. Even that piece stops short of saying that Romney had anything to do with it. The author uses all sorts of innuendo to put his spin on it, but only concludes that this "may lead to questions" about the end of Romney's time at Bain. Again. Is it really that far-fetched of an idea that Romney needed to remain a signatory on certain deals between the time of his resigning operational contril in '99 and them signing their separation agreement in '02? Is that really so-far-out-there impossible?

That article was really just a horecrap. 2/3 of it was talking about safety violations that occurred prior to Bain taking over. The rest of it is trying to paint Romney as still pulling strings and running things when everyone, including Bain denies it. Is it really that hard to believe the Bain spokesman when they say that he retired from day to day operations in 1999, but remained as a signer until they negotiated his separation agreement? I mean is that really so far-fetched?

So you're saying that we're arguing about the specifics of something that didn't even happen? I really can't wait for this campaign to be over.

You, simply, don't know what you're talking about. I wish you'd educate yourself about this in a manner other than in 30 second soundbites. With all due respect, you just have no idea what you're talking about. I wish you'd educate yourself about this in a manner other than 30 second soundbites.

I think so, but I'm an unabashed Romney supporter: "This was a Massachussets solution to a Massachussets problem. This solution worked well in the relatively wealthy (and the relative low rate of uninsured)state of Mass., but to try and use this model as the basis for health care reform for the US as a whole is madness. If anything, we should be trying to create MORE incentives for states to experiment on their own. No party, person, or President has a monopoly on good ideas, yet this bill supposes that the federal government has all the answers for everyone in the country, without allowing for experiments that would potentially be beneficial to all." Yadda, yadda, yadda. I'm already tired of this Presidential campaign and it hasn't really started yet.

You've GOT to be kidding, right?

I am an unabashed Romney supporter, but his path to the Presidency is still pretty difficult. As long as there isn't a significant worsening of the economy, I think it's going to be really difficult for him, electorally speaking. I don't see significant worsening over the next 6 months or so, do you? I think all of the major issues are at about the 9-12 month window in affecting our economy. We were talking at work about how there is now probably a significant chance of another Great Depression. In fact, if you look at how the 30's played out I *think* it was remarkably similar to how we've started out in this most recent crisis.

I think what you wrote is completely defensible. I also find the other side to be completely defensible, although I tend to agree with you. And, strictly speaking, yes, you do want to suppress voter turnout. By making it more difficult for people to vote, you are for suppressing voter turnout. And THAT is why the other side has any sort of case at all. If you're seeking to limit voter turnout, in any way, then there should be a darn good reason to do so (so goes the argument against). What if I lose my card? What if I'm mugged on the way to the voting booths? What if my house burns down two days before the election? What if...? In those instances, I would be denied my right to vote. I fully respect your rejection of the premise of 'since there isn't reported voter fraud, there isn't voter fraud'. I would disagree with a 'well, that settles it, then. We need voter id!' conclusion based on something that is 'absence of evidence'. I wouldn't spend two seconds of energy on this issue if it was me 'in power'. I just don't see where this is any significant problem at all.

I agree. It's also not unreasonable for some to say this: Voting is such a fundamental right that to put restrictions on it, in ANY way, should only be done if there is some problem that needs to be addressed. At this point, there is NO problem, so why should we be limiting, in any way, people's right to vote? Again -- intentions can and do matter. If there isn't a problem with voter fraud, what are we trying to fix? The very simple answer (and really, Magox -- disprovable? You know better than this) is that the ONLY reason this is an issue is because Republicans think it will limit Democrat turnout and Democrats think it will limit Democrat turnout. Complicating the issue is that there is a 'moral high ground' argument for both sides, neither of which is unreasonable. Why does anyone on this board give a rip about voter id laws? There is NO problem. What are you trying to solve? Because it's a partisan issue that both sides use to rile up their base. Stop being played. Vote the issues. This is so far away from being an issue it's comical. What voter fraud!?! Edit: I hate it when you guys force me to argue the other sides of these things. I think there should be voter ID laws. If I were 'in power', I wouldn't think about this for even two seconds in my first four years. This is just not anything to be all riled up about. There are so many more issues that need to be dealt with. Voter fraud is NOT a problem.

Of course it should! Please point me to all of the giant problems we've had with unfair elections due to voter fraud and, specifically, to voter fraud that would be stopped by having ID cards. Again. I'm for this idea of voter id cards, but this issue is only alive because Republicans think it will suppress Democrat turnout. That's the reason, and they're probably right. Same to you: Please point me to somewhere where I can see all this giant voter fraud epidemic that is actually disenfranchising 'true' voters because the 'fraudsters' are changing elections.

Firstly, let me say that I support Voter ID laws. I don't see what the big deal is -- if they're free and reasonably available I think it makes sense to ask people to present their ID before they vote. Secondly -- If you think that Republican *politicians* are doing this for any other reason than that they think it will help them win more often, you're deluding yourself. It doesn't take a genius to realize that folks who don't have ID are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican.

Never mind. I quit. No, really this time.

Let's assume you mean that he would sell computers for a profit. Where did he get the money to buy the component parts the computers he was to sell?

What you call 'exploitation' is the very engine by which our living standards continue to rise. It is also called 'incentive'. Without the investment incentive or 'exploitation' in your terms, rising living standards grind to a halt. Stop quoting books, internet sites or whatever it is you're quoting and THINK about the practical implications of implementing your economic system where employees vote themselves the profits of a company. Just think about it. It may not seem 'fair' to you, but it is, most assuredly, the best way to increase prosperity and living standards for ALL. Without this incentive, Bill Gates doesn't drop out of Harvard and start Microsoft. He goes to work for IBM.

It was the Norwegian! Edit: That's wrong.