The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[achilles]

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.

Are you referring to the movie that a British judge ordered certain AGW "facts" removed from because they had, (like a great many other AGW arguments), been proven wrong?

I especially love the polar bear scam, what with that Brit commercial of all the polar bears falling from the sky and going splat because of AGW. Too bad no one thought to ask the Inuit how many polar bears there were, or...actually bother to count them. Seems the cute, cuddly maneaters are prospering and multiplying...

Or the shrinking Himalayan glaciers...

[Regulator]

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

You're aware of a lot of things, but your posts are so full of spin, double talk and intellectual dishonesty that any genuine debate dissolves into the kind of partisan nonsense that this thread has.

Just because An Inconvenient Truth wasn't 100% accurate doesn't mean that reducing man-made emissions is a bad thing.

[Timbales]

I don't understand how anyone can think that the way humanity has changed the environment would not have an impact on climate.

[MoneyMelon]

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.

It's not a matter of my opinion. It's a fact. Bain Capital, when Mitt Romney was CEO, was directly responsible for layoffs in companies they took a stake in. And this was done solely so Bain Capital and their investors could make a profit. This is what Bain Capital and companies like them do.

This is what his Republican opponents like John Huntsman and Newt Gingrich were talking about during the debates when they called Romney a job killer. Not Democrats, mind you......other Republicans.

You haven't really given any specifics as to which layoffs you're talking about, so I'm not exactly sure how anybody is to know what you're referencing. I'm not even aware that people getting fired or layed off from Bain Capital itself was even an issue. Maybe you can clarify that for me.

But your claim that Mitt Romney hasn't personally profited by large scale layoffs is certainly incorrect.

[achilles]

You're aware of a lot of things, but your posts are so full of spin, double talk and intellectual dishonesty that any genuine debate dissolves into the kind of partisan nonsense that this thread has.

Just because An Inconvenient Truth wasn't 100% accurate doesn't mean that reducing man-made emissions is a bad thing.

As opposed to you, I suppose, the king of intellectual honesty. /sarc

I read your posts BTW, and they're nothing but spin, presented as fact. I at least admit when there is uncertainty in my interpretation of the fact. You don't even acknowledge facts, only your opinion.

And I never said reducing say auto and factory emissions is a bad thing. But not for those reasons, and not without an honest examination of the costs vs the benefits. Which AGW advocates want to shut down, largely because they realize it's best not to look too closely at their scam.

[achilles]

It's not a matter of my opinion. It's a fact. Bain Capital, when Mitt Romney was CEO, was directly responsible for layoffs in companies they took a stake in. And this was done solely so Bain Capital and their investors could make a profit. This is what Bain Capital and companies like them do.

This is what his Republican opponents like John Huntsman and Newt Gingrich were talking about during the debates when they called Romney a job killer. Not Democrats, mind you......other Republicans.

You haven't really given any specifics as to which layoffs you're talking about, so I'm not exactly sure how anybody is to know what you're referencing. I'm not even aware that people getting fired or layed off from Bain Capital itself was even an issue. Maybe you can clarify that for me.

But your claim that Mitt Romney hasn't personally profited by large scale layoffs is certainly incorrect.

Layoffs at Bain itself were never an issue, you evidently thought I said it was.

To clarify what I was talking about, specifically, I was referring to a Gingrich commercial making claims about specific companies Bain acquired, and a Romney hit-piece film called The King of Bain, from which the claims in the commercial are derived. All of which was later picked up as talking points for sundry Obama surrogates, (who probably don't want to answer the question of what happened at the auto firms after Obama bailed them out, (hint: Job losses, lots of them).

Interspersed with appropriately eerie music, the video focuses on four Bain-financed companies and features heart-wrenching interviews with people who portray Romney and Bain as ruthless, quick-buck corporate raiders who reaped huge financial rewards at the expense of faithful employees.

*
BLOG: Gingrich asks 'super PAC' to edit Romney attack film

But a closer look at the companies highlighted in the video reveals a murkier picture. The video often overstates, or outright distorts, Romney's culpability for job losses or bankruptcies.

•The film talks about layoffs at DDi Corp. and discusses questionable manipulation of stock prices after the circuit board company went public. But Romney had left Bain Capital a year before any layoffs and a public stock offering that ultimately netted Bain and Romney a big payday. The company's subsequent bankruptcy filing came two years after Bain had largely divested from the company, and was the result of the dot-com bust. Moreover, the company emerged from bankruptcy, and its current CEO credits those early Bain investments for setting the foundation for the company's current success.

•The film claims Romney was involved in the acquisition, management and demise of the now-defunct KB Toys. He wasn't. Bain bought the toy company nearly two years after Romney left Bain.

•Likewise, the closing of UniMac's plant in Marianna, Fla., occurred seven years after Romney left Bain and nearly two years after Bain sold UniMac's parent company to another private equity house.

---from Fact Check.org.

As for why Bain lays of people at companies, yeah, profit. But they don't fit the Gordon Gecko mold of stripping a company to sell it's assets, rather, under Romney, the tried to FIX the companies they acquired; to get them to a sound financial and operational basis. By and large, they succeeded more than they failed. Considerably more. Thus saving jobs at companies that were in danger of failing at some point.

So, to sum up, I was talking specifically about the claims made in that film, echoed in Gingrich's commercial, and in Democratic talking points. About specific companies at specific times, and Romney's involvement in them.

[Ntikrst]

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.

Apparently, several scientists thought the IPCC's report was so bad they asked to have their names removed. They were deeply offended to find that the IPCC not only retained their names against their will, but also padded the signatures with bureaucrats and politicians.

Just because An Inconvenient Truth wasn't 100% accurate doesn't mean that reducing man-made emissions is a bad thing.

Well according to Eli Katz, if either side of the argument presents a "film" with any inaccuracies, it must be completely disregarded out of hand.

Reducing man-made emissions is fine and dandy, but carbon taxes will only serve to widen the gap between rich and poor by increasing food prices and limiting industrial development in the third world. Carbon Taxes will ensure that only the rich that can afford to do business, and even more debt awaits the poor.

[Eli Katz]

Apparently, several scientists thought the IPCC's report was so bad they asked to have their names removed. They were deeply offended to find that the IPCC not only retained their names against their will, but also padded the signatures with bureaucrats and politicians.

Well according to Eli Katz, if either side of the argument presents a "film" with any inaccuracies, it must be completely disregarded out of hand.

Reducing man-made emissions is fine and dandy, but carbon taxes will only serve to widen the gap between rich and poor by increasing food prices and limiting industrial development in the third world. Carbon Taxes will ensure that only the rich that can afford to do business, and even more debt awaits the poor.

You're really good at misrepresenting arguments.

Look at my original post: I said having concerns with the estimates of human impact on climate is legitimate. Pushing conspiracy theories about researchers is not.

There is nothing wrong with scientific debate. But you don't appear to be interested in scientific discussion; you're interested in posting sarcastic emoticons.

[MoneyMelon]

As for why Bain lays of people at companies, yeah, profit. But they don't fit the Gordon Gecko mold of stripping a company to sell it's assets, rather, under Romney, the tried to FIX the companies they acquired; to get them to a sound financial and operational basis. By and large, they succeeded more than they failed. Considerably more. Thus saving jobs at companies that were in danger of failing at some point.

So, to sum up, I was talking specifically about the claims made in that film, echoed in Gingrich's commercial, and in Democratic talking points. About specific companies at specific times, and Romney's involvement in them.

Their goal actually isn't to fix companies.

It's merely to maximize value for investors. Whether or not a company succeeds or fails is irrelevant to their goals. In fact, they made considerable returns on companies that went bankrupt because they issued bonds knowing it would be improbable to pay them back. But by that time, Bain sold their stake, so they cashed out and let the companies sink.

Imagine the United States was a company that Bain took a stake in and used this approach....

Bain had a great track record of making money for investors (especially when they were putting money in tax havens like the Caymens and Bermuda to boost that profit and attract more investors.....which of course means more revenue for executive compensation....executives like Mitt Romney), but not a good track record of actually turning a company around and positioning it for success. But, of course, that isn't really the goal of a private equity firm. As long as the investors get a big return and they're happy and keep investing, nobody really cares about what happens to those companies and their workers in the long-term. That's why people call it "vulture capitalism".

So I guess in a few cases Romney has been pinned down on things that didn't happen under his watch, although there's still a ton of cases where he did the exact same thing to other investments. What's interesting is that Romney also tried to take credit for things that happened after his time at Bain Capital (namely job creation)......but the campaign has backed off some of those claims recently

[Ntikrst]

You're really good at misrepresenting arguments.

Look at my original post: I said having concerns with the estimates of human impact on climate is legitimate. Pushing conspiracy theories about researchers is not.

OMFG, right. The Aristocracy and the "Court" would never collude to lie to the people in order to rationalize taxes that would effectively enslave the Masses. They would never manipulate Data, stifle dissent, and ostracize and vilify everyone who disagreed with them. We all know how much the 1% love to share their 40%.

There is nothing wrong with scientific debate.

There must be, because as far as AGW goes, there isn't any. Gore made up our minds for us, anyone who disagrees is wrong. End of discussion.

But you don't appear to be interested in scientific discussion; you're interested in posting sarcastic emoticons.

Why should I be the only one? A scientific discussion would only be possible if there was equal exposure and an open discussion of both sides. Corporate owned media dictates public opinion through selective exposure and distorted significance. There is nothing scientific about AGW, it's a political movement with the full support of extremely biased media coverage for the sole purpose of rationalizing Carbon Taxes that will empower the wealthy and enslave the masses. It's Neo-Feudalism, pure and fucking simple.




Oh wait, almost forgot.

[Eli Katz]

OMFG, right. The Aristocracy and the "Court" would never collude to lie to the people in order to rationalize taxes that would effectively enslave the Masses. They would never manipulate Data, stifle dissent, and ostracize and vilify everyone who disagreed with them. We all know how much the 1% love to share their 40%.

There must be, because as far as AGW goes, there isn't any. Gore made up our minds for us, anyone who disagrees is wrong. End of discussion.

Why should I be the only one? A scientific discussion would only be possible if there was equal exposure and an open discussion of both sides. Corporate owned media dictates public opinion through selective exposure and distorted significance. There is nothing scientific about AGW, it's a political movement with the full support of extremely biased media coverage for the sole purpose of rationalizing Carbon Taxes that will empower the wealthy and enslave the masses. It's Neo-Feudalism, pure and fucking simple.




Oh wait, almost forgot.

You can't see the gayness of Batman, but you do see a conspiracy between corporate media and university-affiliated scientists to perpetuate fake climate data and in turn empower the "wealthy." Meanwhile, the poor, helpless energy industry is powerless to stop it. Yeah, that makes sense so much sense.

[Ntikrst]

You can't see the gayness of Batman,

How would I see that? I don't own any Batman comics before '86. It's not exactly my go-to Fap material when I'm on the interwebz. But it still isn't proof that Batman is gay.

As sdsichero said, I didn't notice these things in Bert and Ernie either. Then again, penis' are abound in The Little Mermaid, and Simba makes sex clouds because the animators were having some secret fun, so those things could well be projected upon Batman by the creative staff.

Batman isn't gay, the people who were hired to portray him were having some inside fun at the characters expense, taking the piss, so to speak. Just the same with The Little Mermaid and The Lion King. There wasn't an editorial mandate to plant subliminal messages.




Or was there?


Oh noes, Disney wants to fuck your children!

Grown men are trying to break up the monotony of working on children's material by amusing themselves with inappropriate depictions that they can hide in plain sight within the narrative. Animators are the worst, when I worked in the biz, we used to draw all kinds of sick shit at our desks with your favorite characters.

but you do see a conspiracy between corporate media and university-affiliated scientists to perpetuate fake climate data and in turn empower the "wealthy.

Yup, and I'm the only one too. I must be a lone nut, because absolute power never corrupts. Peer pressure doesn't exist and Groupthink is a figment of Orwell's imagination. The media represents both sides of the argument equally and never vilifies one point of view over another, right? No conspiracy here, unlike kid's entertainment which is designed to subliminally sexualize our youth. Now that's a conspiracy, Wertham tried to warn us but we wouldn't listen.

Meanwhile, the poor, helpless energy industry is powerless to stop it. Yeah, that makes sense so much sense.

Why would the energy industry want to stop it? Our demand for energy isn't going to change and Carbon Taxes levied against any Corporation will be eventually passed on to the consumer. Imposed scarcity is good for business and they are still going to get paid. Best of all, the existing energy industry will be subsidized by Carbon Tax money to explore alternative sources, so AGW is win-win for big oil.

Imagine that?

[Arion]

A D in Harvard is like an A in most community colleges, and an A in a community college is still much better than having no college degree at all.