The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[pastajoe]

Willard only released his most recent tax records, the one's from after he decided to run for president. So he had time to move his holdings around to reduce the appearance of profiting off laying off others (except you have to wonder why he's putting money in the Cayman Islands instead of the U.S.). Let's see how he made his money while he was still in private business. It goes towards finding out what his business practices were, which he claims are his best assets. So put your money where your mouth is.

I don't see what difference school grades make if a person has been successful. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs weren't the best students, and that didn't stop them from being successful. It's just the latest lame effort since the birthers have been discredited. I don't care what grades Willard got, that's not what makes him who he is. He could have flunked out and still been set up in business by daddy. Obama had to make it on his own.

[HNutz]

At Harvard in...Natural Sciences...

Just the person to lecture everyone on how the debate is "settled" about AGW.

Still, that's better than Obama, who, while needling Romney about releasing more tax records, (he's already released many of them), won't release ANY of his college transcripts.

You know the two words I really picked up on?At Harvard.

He passed science at MOTHER FUCKIN' HARVARD! Yeah, that's a good sign.

[Ntikrst]

I didn't do so well on a physical anthropology course 20 years ago. I guess that bars me from ever saying anything about the theory of evolution.

Damn it, maybe dinosaurs really are Jesus chariots.

By all means, say whatever you like.

Just don't run for office, Darwin.

[achilles]

I didn't do so well on a physical anthropology course 20 years ago. I guess that bars me from ever saying anything about the theory of evolution.

Damn it, maybe dinosaurs really are Jesus chariots.

You're not making hundreds of millions of dollars off a theory supported mainly by manufactured evidence that input into a computer model designed to support said theory---that skirts the scientific method, and is hotly disputed by numerous noted scientists. One that would impose vast hardship on hundreds of millions of people, and make a few very rich, and make the careers of others. While attempting to demonize, and in some cases threatening physical violence against those who disagree with you. And you haven't been proven wrong on many specifics.

Gore and the AGW crowd are all those things.

[achilles]

You know the two words I really picked up on?At Harvard.

He passed science at MOTHER FUCKIN' HARVARD! Yeah, that's a good sign.

Getting IN to Harvard is the hard part, and by being who is is, he had that nailed. Once you're there, failing is really tough.

[achilles]

Willard only released his most recent tax records, the one's from after he decided to run for president. So he had time to move his holdings around to reduce the appearance of profiting off laying off others (except you have to wonder why he's putting money in the Cayman Islands instead of the U.S.). Let's see how he made his money while he was still in private business. It goes towards finding out what his business practices were, which he claims are his best assets. So put your money where your mouth is.

I don't see what difference school grades make if a person has been successful. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs weren't the best students, and that didn't stop them from being successful. It's just the latest lame effort since the birthers have been discredited. I don't care what grades Willard got, that's not what makes him who he is. He could have flunked out and still been set up in business by daddy. Obama had to make it on his own.

You are aware that "daddy" didn't set Mitt Romney up with anything? He made all his own money. Obama hasn't actually done anything in his life except run for office, and be in office. Which for him consists mainly of voting present, or going to many parties and vacations on the taxpayer dime. The very little bit where he worked in private industry, by all accounts he was a failure, a no-nothing who had to have others do his work for him, since he didn't understand anything about finance, (he wrote a newsletter for a financial firm). And his law professor claims are inflated, (he was never a professor at University of Chicago, merely a lecturer).

Romeny has released a number of years worth of tax records. Nor did he "profit from laying others off". That was a lie made up by his opponents, easily debunked by talking to the people who were there--- or simply by noting when these layoffs happened, and when he worked at Bain. The dates don't coincide. By many years in most cases. In other cases, layoffs simply didn't happen during his tenure. Some of the people who were said to be laid off then have rebutted in---having in fact been promoted while he was at Bain, and they credit him for that.

As for how he made his money---it's public record. Unlike say the house deal Obama got that resulted in some criminal investigations.

[BubbaKanoosh]

It's pathetic how both Rep. and Dems hate the stuff the someone from the other party says just because they are in the other party.

[habitual]

It's pathetic how both Rep. and Dems hate the stuff the someone from the other party says just because they are in the other party.

Like this thread?

Hab

[LobsterJ]

You are aware that "daddy" didn't set Mitt Romney up with anything? He made all his own money. Obama hasn't actually done anything in his life except run for office, and be in office. Which for him consists mainly of voting present, or going to many parties and vacations on the taxpayer dime. The very little bit where he worked in private industry, by all accounts he was a failure, a no-nothing who had to have others do his work for him, since he didn't understand anything about finance, (he wrote a newsletter for a financial firm). And his law professor claims are inflated, (he was never a professor at University of Chicago, merely a lecturer).

Romeny has released a number of years worth of tax records. Nor did he "profit from laying others off". That was a lie made up by his opponents, easily debunked by talking to the people who were there--- or simply by noting when these layoffs happened, and when he worked at Bain. The dates don't coincide. By many years in most cases. In other cases, layoffs simply didn't happen during his tenure. Some of the people who were said to be laid off then have rebutted in---having in fact been promoted while he was at Bain, and they credit him for that.

As for how he made his money---it's public record. Unlike say the house deal Obama got that resulted in some criminal investigations.

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

[LobsterJ]

You are aware that "daddy" didn't set Mitt Romney up with anything? He made all his own money. Obama hasn't actually done anything in his life except run for office, and be in office. Which for him consists mainly of voting present, or going to many parties and vacations on the taxpayer dime. The very little bit where he worked in private industry, by all accounts he was a failure, a no-nothing who had to have others do his work for him, since he didn't understand anything about finance, (he wrote a newsletter for a financial firm). And his law professor claims are inflated, (he was never a professor at University of Chicago, merely a lecturer).

Romeny has released a number of years worth of tax records. Nor did he "profit from laying others off". That was a lie made up by his opponents, easily debunked by talking to the people who were there--- or simply by noting when these layoffs happened, and when he worked at Bain. The dates don't coincide. By many years in most cases. In other cases, layoffs simply didn't happen during his tenure. Some of the people who were said to be laid off then have rebutted in---having in fact been promoted while he was at Bain, and they credit him for that.

As for how he made his money---it's public record. Unlike say the house deal Obama got that resulted in some criminal investigations.

So wait, Obama should release his college records (going back 20+ years) and because he doesn't he has "something to hide" but Romney releasing merely 2 years of recently tax returns is totally sufficient? Doesn't that make you think Romney has "something to hide" on those past returns?

[Eli Katz]

You're not making hundreds of millions of dollars off a theory supported mainly by manufactured evidence that input into a computer model designed to support said theory---that skirts the scientific method, and is hotly disputed by numerous noted scientists. One that would impose vast hardship on hundreds of millions of people, and make a few very rich, and make the careers of others. While attempting to demonize, and in some cases threatening physical violence against those who disagree with you. And you haven't been proven wrong on many specifics.

Gore and the AGW crowd are all those things.

Seriously, you think that there is a cabal of climate scientists who all use junk data and profoundly flawed models to generate completely dubious results? That doesn't make sense on so many levels.

You can question just how much impact human activity has on climate change, and you can legitimately argue that this impact is less or more than what certain scientists estimate. But to condemn university-affiliated researchers from numerous institutions, located in multiple regions in multiple countries, for perpetuating a global-warming conspiracy is absurd and suggests that you don't really understand peer review and the basics of scientific practices.

[Ntikrst]

Seriously, you think that there is a cabal of climate scientists who all use junk data and profoundly flawed models to generate completely dubious results? That doesn't make sense on so many levels.

Neither does paying untold billions in new emission based taxes in the hope that the governments of the world can "save" us.

You can question just how much impact human activity has on climate change, and you can legitimately argue that this impact is less or more than what certain scientists estimate. But to condemn university-affiliated researchers from numerous institutions, located in multiple regions in multiple countries, for perpetuating a global-warming conspiracy is absurd and suggests that you don't really understand peer review and the basics of scientific practices.

I know right? How can anyone imagine such a conspiracy exists. We all remember the extensive debates that were hosted by all the media outlets. It's not like they only ever present one side of the argument, oh no it was equal coverage. The skeptics were all uneducated laymen anyways, 100% of all educated professionals support AGW unilaterally.

This is why I don't trust the IPCC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

[Eli Katz]

Neither does paying untold billions in new emission based taxes in the hope that the governments of the world can "save" us.

I know right? How can anyone imagine such a conspiracy exists. We all remember the extensive debates that were hosted by all the media outlets. It's not like they only ever present one side of the argument, oh no it was equal coverage. The skeptics were all uneducated laymen anyways, 100% of all educated professionals support AGW unilaterally.

This is why I don't trust the IPCC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ

That's the movie that claimed volcanic emissions of CO2 are greater than human emissions. This point turned out to be false and the producers of the film later had to remove it, along with other "evidence," from the film. Apparently, one of the scientists interviewed for the movie, a climate-change skeptic, thought the film was so bad that he asked to have his footage removed.

[MoneyMelon]

Nor did he "profit from laying others off". That was a lie made up by his opponents, easily debunked by talking to the people who were there--- or simply by noting when these layoffs happened, and when he worked at Bain. The dates don't coincide. By many years in most cases. In other cases, layoffs simply didn't happen during his tenure. Some of the people who were said to be laid off then have rebutted in---having in fact been promoted while he was at Bain, and they credit him for that.

As for how he made his money---it's public record. Unlike say the house deal Obama got that resulted in some criminal investigations.

This is incorrect. Bain Capital is a private equity firm. What they do is take a majority stake in a company and attempt to restructure it to maximize value. This often included accepting government subsidies, outsourcing American jobs and laying off workers, sometimes in the thousands, to reduce a company's costs. Sometimes this is a good thing because it keeps a company afloat and saves the jobs of workers who remain, sometimes it destroys a company and leaves everybody who worked there jobless. But it certainly included laying off a lot of people and Bain Capital makes a substantial amount of money doing this. The issue isn't Bain laying off their own workers. It's the workers in the companies Bain took a majority stake in.

I'll go as far as saying that the United States government should do some of this kind of restructuring to reduce costs, but to say he hasn't profited from layoffs simply isn't correct.

[achilles]

This is incorrect. Bain Capital is a private equity firm. What they do is take a majority stake in a company and attempt to restructure it to maximize value. This often included accepting government subsidies, outsourcing American jobs and laying off workers, sometimes in the thousands, to reduce a company's costs. Sometimes this is a good thing because it keeps a company afloat and saves the jobs of workers who remain, sometimes it destroys a company and leaves everybody who worked there jobless. But it certainly included laying off a lot of people and Bain Capital makes a substantial amount of money doing this. The issue isn't Bain laying off their own workers. It's the workers in the companies Bain took a majority stake in.

I'll go as far as saying that the United States government should do some of this kind of restructuring to reduce costs, but to say he hasn't profited from layoffs simply isn't correct.

You say my post is incorrect, then post stuff that says nothing about why you think my post is incorrect. My point about the dates of his employment vs the dates of the layoffs his opponents is correct. Most of the ones being complained about happened as much as a decade after he left Bain. I know blaming Republicans for stuff that happens way after they left the job is a thing with Democrats, but hey, there's a time when no one will buy that.

And yes, I'm well aware of what Bain is, and what the issue is.