It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheTardis
Originally posted by SebastianQuinn
reply to post by Eurisko2012
Up until three months ago we were creating 200+ jobs a month for the last couple years. 4 Million jobs have been created under Obama even though all his jobs bills have been blocked by congress.
Thats funny because he had enough control of congress to push Obamacare through and he is signing executive orders left and right to give himself power. Stop using the congress is blocking him thing. And 200+ jobs per month? Thats not even scratching the surface of what we need.
But please show me what bills congress blocked that would have saved us all?edit on 13-7-2012 by TheTardis because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Originally posted by TheTardis
Originally posted by SebastianQuinn
reply to post by Eurisko2012
Up until three months ago we were creating 200+ jobs a month for the last couple years. 4 Million jobs have been created under Obama even though all his jobs bills have been blocked by congress.
Thats funny because he had enough control of congress to push Obamacare through and he is signing executive orders left and right to give himself power. Stop using the congress is blocking him thing. And 200+ jobs per month? Thats not even scratching the surface of what we need.
But please show me what bills congress blocked that would have saved us all?edit on 13-7-2012 by TheTardis because: (no reason given)
Oh haven't you heard? That Stimulus 1.0 thingy didn't work out at all. - $800 billion gone -
Now Obama wants to borrow $3 trillion from the Chinese and give us more
Solyndra Scandals. The big bad Republicans think that's a bad idea.
The big bad Republicans want the private sector to grow the economy. See?
Originally posted by SebastianQuinn
reply to post by Eurisko2012
Are you saying Romney can run on his record? During a good economic perdiod when he ranked 47th in job creation as a governor. If you really wanted a Republican who knows how to create jobs then John Huntsman would have been your nominee. Huntsman ranked at the top in job creation as a governnor and the job creation were private sector positions. Romney cannot run on job creation or Romneycare. Face it, Romney is the sacrificial lamb. Why is is Christie, Daniels and Rubio refuse to take the VP slot? They all know they are good presidential candidates for 2016. They are not going to take a chance and help him win and then wait until 2020 for their shot. They also are not going to risk their chances with a terrible candidates. 2016 the Republicans will have a very good chance. I suspect Jeb and Christie will be the ticket vs. Clinton and Cuomo/Villaraigosa/Warren
Originally posted by xuenchen
Originally posted by SebastianQuinn
reply to post by Eurisko2012
Are you saying Romney can run on his record? During a good economic perdiod when he ranked 47th in job creation as a governor. If you really wanted a Republican who knows how to create jobs then John Huntsman would have been your nominee. Huntsman ranked at the top in job creation as a governnor and the job creation were private sector positions. Romney cannot run on job creation or Romneycare. Face it, Romney is the sacrificial lamb. Why is is Christie, Daniels and Rubio refuse to take the VP slot? They all know they are good presidential candidates for 2016. They are not going to take a chance and help him win and then wait until 2020 for their shot. They also are not going to risk their chances with a terrible candidates. 2016 the Republicans will have a very good chance. I suspect Jeb and Christie will be the ticket vs. Clinton and Cuomo/Villaraigosa/Warren
I don't what the unemployment rates were when Romney was Governor,
but it could a bit tough to "create" new jobs when employment in general is already "full".
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by TheTardis
You don't understand.
The first 2 years Obama ignored the economy and played 100 rounds of golf.
He got what he wanted: ObamaCare & Dodd Frank.
--------
When Obama got blasted by the November 2010 election THEN he tried to pivot
to the economy and try even MORE government spending.
Obama - hates - the private sector.
Obama only wants more Green Energy Boondoggles like Solyndra that are doomed
to fail.
edit on 13-7-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Why do you people keep dragging the dead horse out to beat? Romney had no part of Bain after '99, and all the evidence agrees upon that.
His campaign's explanation?
This is nothing more than a quirk in the law. When Governor Romney took over the Olympics, he was not involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way. He was too busy working to make the Olympic Games among the most successful ever held.
Romney's sworn testimony was given as part of a hearing to determine whether he had sufficient residency status in Massachusetts to run for governor.
Romney testified that he "remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation" at the time.
His activities during that period also included Staples board meetings: "I returned for most of those meetings. Others I attended by telephone if I could not return."
Romney's lawyer at the Massachusetts hearing said that Romney's work in the private sector continued "unabated" while he ran the Olympics: "He succeeded in that three-year period in restoring confidence in the Olympic Games, closing that disastrous deficit and staging one of the most successful Olympic Games ever to occur on U.S. soil. Now while all that was going on, very much in the public eye, what happened to his private and public ties to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? And the answer is they continued unabated just as they had."
But ten years ago this very issue was brought up to a state agency pursuant to his campaign for Governor. There was no wrongdoing found at the time. I can see where he would think that the matter had been aired and he had been cleared. It seems he was "honest from the get-go." Is it really his style to leave potentially criminal matters hidden until they're exposed? I haven't been following his campaign closely, so I must have missed the many examples of that.
If he had been honest from the get-go this might not have been an issue, but his modis-operendi is to hide everything until it is found out.
I thought he was; taking credit for it in fact, showing he understood the economy, saved some jobs, etc.
If he is proud of his tenure at Bain, then he should be willing to openly and honestly discuss his tenure at Bain.
You sound like a Romney supporter. You're right, he took three years off, ending in 2002, had little or no input into Bain during those years, and does not take credit or blame for the decisions made while he was just holding titles there.
What we have here is ..."OK, OK...yes...I was the sole stockholder, CEO, Chairman of the Board and President of Bain until 2002 and got paid a lot of money during that time for it...but I knew nothing and nothing they did was my fault."
It is not an issue in as much as Romney likely had little input into Bain dealings during that time, but remained the Chairman of the Board, CEO and President of the company.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Indigo5
Dear Indigo5,
I respect you and your work, so I can only conclude that the confusion is on my side of the screen. It happens to me, rarely, when my brain just shuts down and will not accept anyone else's ideas. Perhaps that's happened here.
Originally posted by charles1952
If he had been honest from the get-go this might not have been an issue, but his modis-operendi is to hide everything until it is found out.
But ten years ago this very issue was brought up to a state agency pursuant to his campaign for Governor. There was no wrongdoing found at the time. I can see where he would think that the matter had been aired and he had been cleared. It seems he was "honest from the get-go."
Originally posted by charles1952
I thought he was; taking credit for it in fact, showing he understood the economy, saved some jobs, etc.
If he is proud of his tenure at Bain, then he should be willing to openly and honestly discuss his tenure at Bain.
Originally posted by charles1952
What we have here is ..."OK, OK...yes...I was the sole stockholder, CEO, Chairman of the Board and President of Bain until 2002 and got paid a lot of money during that time for it...but I knew nothing and nothing they did was my fault."
It is not an issue in as much as Romney likely had little input into Bain dealings during that time, but remained the Chairman of the Board, CEO and President of the company.
You sound like a Romney supporter. You're right, he took three years off, ending in 2002, had little or no input into Bain during those years, and does not take credit or blame for the decisions made while he was just holding titles there.
But as I said, I may be misunderstanding you.
With respect,
Charles1952
What we have here is ..."OK, OK...yes...I was the sole stockholder, CEO, Chairman of the Board and President of Bain until 2002 and got paid a lot of money during that time for it...but I knew nothing and nothing they did was my fault."
How does that translate to POTUS?
The five-year branding odyssey that began in 2001 has helped make $16.1 billion Staples the runaway leader in office retail.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Indigo5
Dear Indigo5,
Thank you for your patience with me.
Originally posted by charles1952
I don't think I'm going to be able to answer your reply with the thoroughness it deserves.
Originally posted by charles1952
But I would like to answer for one of my specific failings which you pointed out, my failure to answer your question about this event displaying a weakness as a candidaate for POTUS.
It looks like a case of "What does that really mean?" What does "control" mean? What do the SEC statements mean? Etc. I guess I'm just too ignorant to have an opinion worth listening to on this subject.
Originally posted by charles1952
To be very frank, it was a case of biting my tongue. The idea of anyone having a worse resume and character than our current President seems laughable. If we're considering only a Romney v. Obama contest, I'm surprised that anyone could ask who has the better character and resume.
Originally posted by charles1952
I must say though, Indigo5, that you have been very helpful and kind in exposing me to valuable information and showing me that there is a question here. You go up in my estimation every time we meet.
With respect,
Charles1952
Originally posted by charles1952
While it looks like the thread is pretty much agreed that the 1999-2002 thing is not an issue, I wanted to add a link to another Washington Post fact checker article. Because of the uproar, they decided to "recheck their figures" so to speak. Their conclusion the second time around? There is nothing to the charges. They gave it three Pinocchios out of four. Here's the article:Washington Post Fact Checker v.2