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.

 

NEW ROMNEY VIDEO: In 1985, He Said Bain Would "Harvest" Companies for Profits

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


I sholdn't have been drinking when I watched this.




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Yeah I watched that episode, pretty tame even for Mahr.
But a boriing unpopular nerd always performs and can always do a better job than someone focused on coolness and popularity.
Im sure a person with such an avatar as yours would agree.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 

Umm, collectivism is universal? How?

I can see your argument in terms of how humans formed tribes and communities wherein they worked together with common goals and shared each others burdens, but the modern world is a bit removed from that with our intense need for privacy and ownership. Although I can see the increasing similarities with the modern world when I consider information technology and various other technologies that're bridging the world and bringing people closer together. I also see your argument in how ants or bees will mingle together in a colony. However, you have to keep in mind that this is not universal among different species. I think that species which exhibit this behavior are often termed social. Dogs are also a social species. Wolves are too. Wild cats, on the other, like mountain lions, are much less social and more individualistic in their behavior.

But because we're a social species, or claim ourselves to be, does this mean that we're in fact more collectivistic than we want to admit if we're free marketers? Could it be that not all people are as collectivist as others? I actually subscribe to this idea. See, while it's true that some species show more social behavior (colony, city, community, shared burdens, etc), I don't think that each individual of a particular species has to necessarily have the same exact gene expressions. To rephrase it, there're always exceptions and these exceptions can vary in their occurrence. While there might be an argument to be made that humans, as a social species, will become more collectivist with time, I think that there's plenty of room for exceptions and alternative progressions along the way. Nothing says that we cannot linger for a while more as individuals and spreaders of individual freedom.

Here's a link on wiki about Social Animals:
en.wikipedia.org - Social animal...

Please note the following quote from the wiki link above:

.........
A few species, notably insects of the orders Hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps) and Isoptera (termites) show an extreme form of sociality, involving highly organized societies, with individual organisms specialized for distinct roles. This form of social behavior is referred to as eusociality. Some vertebrates, most notably the Naked Mole Rat, are also eusocial.
..........

Your argument is good, but not complete, for these reasons:
1) Not all species are social
2) There're individual exceptions and not all social species have to be equally social

Is the universe itself social or extremely social? One could then look at the different species as members of this overall universal society. If we examine their character, we can arrive at a conclusion. If they work together, it's social. If they compete then it's individualistic.

The extreme examples of competition in the natural world should be a sign to you that we're still a very individualistic universe that's trying to find itself through different species expressions.

But perhaps these examples of competition are only a small sampling? Maybe there's a higher level of existence where these competitions are settled and done and collectivists dominate the field. So it's a sort of bee-hive of species working together for the common good of the universe.

But until we know that there's a higher reality like that, we must assume competition is the rule. Thus, we must assume that the observable (the known) universe is still hunting for its identity. And it does this by thus creating different individual species to compete against each other. We can see the evidence for this in the fossil record - numerous examples of extinction and competition.

I must also ask you... does evolution ever stop? If not, there's always the need then for competition. Thus, there's the need for some individualism to preserve what works versus what doesn't.

In sum, it appears that the universe is individualistic.
edit on 28-9-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Wow.. David Corn from MotherJones is proving to be a powerful force in this election. At least as far as hurting Romney goes. I give drum lessons to Corn's nephew.. who I often tell about Ron Paul



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam


It drives me nuts that people find this offensive. Success has become so villified, I'm convinced we have become a nation of lazy-ass, envious, whiners.

'Harvest' means they bought companies, made them more valuable through investment, and later sold them for a profit.

The fact that people are offended by the term is simply stupid.


What should they have done? Bought businesses....invested heavily in them...and then lost money????



edit on 28-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)


Are you for real!!! take a look at this one liner again




Romney took AmPad's debt from 11 million (prior to being acquired by Bain) to $444 million. Unreal. This is the guy running for president?


there is a difference to being successful and ambitious to slaughtering your way to the top, i mean this guy is an example of why people in your country had their homes taken off them and are living in tents



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
and obama said in 2008

he wanted to redistribute the wealth I have more of a problem with that then capitalism



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
and obama said in 2008

he wanted to redistribute the wealth I have more of a problem with that then capitalism


Yeah just like the Republicans redistributed the country's taxes to the failing banks back in 2008. Romney and Obama, two sides to the same coin. This country is driving a bus to hell and we get the pleasure to pick the bus driver.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


So your religious/spiritual convictions are your reason for the way in which you want to fundamentally change the US. Unfortunately for you we have a separation of church and state in this country. Others who were equally committed to the relevance and truth of their beliefs in the past have proven the wisdom in this need for such separation. It is part of the basis of the US Constitution.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Why limit your comments to 2008 and the Republicans? You are aware of QE3 right? What does the 3 in that suggest?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


keep blaming Bush...

take the first rule out of obamas book and prove me right some more



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


Oh I am very aware of QE3 and I disapprove of it just as much as the bailouts. I don't support either Obama or Romney. I am a registered Libertarian, but I don't even approve of the political party system. It is all rigged to be self-serving for the people with the most money and all the registered Dems and Repubs who defend their candidate no matter what are just playing into their hands. If the Libertarian party ever actually gained traction as a major political party, I'm sure it would fall to the same fate as the Democratic and Republican parties.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DrNotforhire
 


What play book? Did you not fully read or understand my post? Because if you did, you'd see I don't support Obama either. Romney and Obama are two sides to the same coin. Obama just picked up and continued the same stupid mistakes that Bush implemented and the winner of this election will continue where Obama left off (or just continue in the case of a reelection).

What is it with the people who automatically assume that just because someone bashes their favorite candidate that they are immediately for the opposing candidate? Why can't someone be intelligent and realize that both candidates are awful and not like either one and point out each ones flaws?
edit on 28-9-2012 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Revelations???



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


I can be absolutely simple with it and leave you with:

Where does your energy come from? The sun. Photons and radiation from the sun, come crashing down to your home planet. Plants, by some miracle of nature utilize photosynthesis to create ATP and sugars. Those are in turn eaten by animals, which are in turn eaten by larger animals. Animals die and return to the ground, where decomposition takes place by macro and micro decomposers who are still feeding off of that recycled solar energy. The excrement of these creatures fertilizes the soil for the purpose of growth of new flora life. Going deeper "well how does energy get back to the sun" It doesn't, but it will be material that new stars in the future (see: Billions of years away). Once our star goes explosive, so does our planet...and all that material will compact one day into a new star that gives new energy to some form of life somewhere billions of years down the road.

That's community. That's unity. And that is the UNDERWHELMING stuff in the universe. The overwhelming stuff I can't even get into because it's barely understood right now. Observer effects, basic atomic causality, and quantum consciousness. Everything works in tandem. Everything...Why shouldn't humanity...oh wait yeah "MUH GREED, MUH MONEY, MUH HOLIER THAN THOU"

Absolutely disgusting.


edit on 28-9-2012 by TheOneElectric because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
This is the real Romney!
www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Who cares. When Obama bailed out GM, he dumped Buick, Pontiac, Saturn and Hummer. Tens of thousands lost their jobs to make GM "profitable" AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE and he's a hero but if Romney trims the fat off a company to make it profitable, and utilizes PRIVATE FUNDS, he's somehow evil. Save it. Take your envy and stick it up your ballot box.

Like it or not, big business provides millions of jobs in the US and the government does nothing but cost US WORKING FOLKS our hard earned cash. I worked for a company that dumped 300 employees after they were acquired by a private equity firm and I was one of them. I am now making $15k more per year than I was at that job. It was an opportunity for them as well as for me.

If Romney provides one job from the private sector, FOR the private sector, that is more of a success than Obama spending a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to "create" a thousand jobs. Obama's job history basically works out to costing ME about $200,000 for every $30,000 job he "created". That's liberal math for ya. They see that as a success.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Flow101
 



Originally posted by Flow101
This is the real Romney!
www.youtube.com...


This is the real Obama:



Wonderful choices we have.

edit on 28-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
"Harvest" companies for profit - yes, well that is an ugly side of capitalism. But Bain's brand of capitalism isn't just 'turning around' unhealthy companies or harvesting them, we have too many examples of what they did to some companies - buy companies using leveraged buyouts, rack up debt in their name or drain them of their capital, bankrupt them and force creditors to take massive losses, sell their assets while forcing the workers to lose their pensions or shares along with laying them off. Close down American factories and re-open them in China, India, or Mexico. Cook the books and shift the profits into offshore blocker corporations. Make millions while the workers, the pension holders go broke. And call yourself an "Patriotic American" while doing all that.


He is an apex predatory capitalist. Mitt Romney seems to be the model used for the antagonist in so many 80's movies where everything gets screwed up because of a cruel business man.

On a side note, I often joke about how he fits the profile of a serial killer and that was just confirmed. My wife just made friends with a forensics/CJ major and she actually agreed that he does, in fact, fit many of the indicators of a potential serial killer.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jhn7537
 


Bain capital made money regardless if the business failed or not. Mitt Romney just happened to be CEO.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro


In retrospect, it looks like he had a good harvest.



Interesting, outside of a few of his successes, why don't you list his failures as well, they were probably much larger. You and your kind like to spread seriously flawed information to defeat what you don't like. Pay your taxes and quit bitching.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join