Romney TORTURE Memo Leaked

reply to post by RealSpoke


Honest question RealSpoke, have you ever said anything negative about Obama on ATS? Or have you ever created an anti-Obama thread? Your Romney hate runs deep, my friend... i just wish you opened your eyes up to Obama every once in a while... Not saying either candidate is perfect, but you seem to act like Obama was a great president...

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

Honest question RealSpoke, have you ever said anything negative about Obama on ATS? Or have you ever created an anti-Obama thread? Your Romney hate runs deep, my friend... i just wish you opened your eyes up to Obama every once in a while... Not saying either candidate is perfect, but you seem to act like Obama was a great president...

Obama is a better President than many believe, and in time will be seen as such.

Perfect? Not even close... in fact, if you go back through this thread you'll find RealSpoke criticizing him, and certainly not my candidate of choice, but my god... look at how he's been villainized as a Marxist, Kenyan, destroyer of America... give me a break...

He saved the US auto-industry, he managed to get a lot more people healthcare, he managed to pull the trigger - so to speak - on Osama, he's managed to not get the US involved in another major war (so far).

Pretty ok.

And on top of that, between his first budget and now, the unemployment rate has dropped and the US went from haemorrhaging jobs under Bush, to gaining jobs.

Perfect? No.

Better than George W Bush? Yep. Worst President Ever? Only if you're a partisan hack.

reply to post by RealSpoke

By contrast, Mr. Romney’s advisers have privately urged him to “rescind and replace President Obama’s executive order” and permit secret “enhanced interrogation techniques against high-value detainees that are safe, legal and effective in generating intelligence to save American lives,” according to an internal Romney campaign memorandum.

American public reaction "eh, what's the point spread in tonight's Giants / Eagles game?"

US citizen or soldier is tortured by a pack of fundamentalist goons in some god forsaken hell hole of a country....

American public reaction "why those dirty effin' bastards, Let's nuke the country!"

Yup, that's the way the average US citizen is perceived.... Is that correct? NO, but that's the way it's seen....

reply to post by longlostbrother


Staying with the topic that he saved the auto industry, I just read something quite interesting.. Would you consider the passage below a success or a failure?

Obama invested our money into GM, GM is trading today at less than $23 per share and the government's remaining 500 million shares would have to sell for around $53 per share for the U.S. to break even. Is this a success or failure?

Obama bailed out the unions at our expense, nationalized GM and three years later this "saved" industry still owes the taxpayers tens of BILLIONS, so basically we still have the same situation - stagnant auto industry, burdensome regulations, and a labor market that is so over-priced that it can't compete with the rest of the world. The auto bailout was just more buying votes by the dems.

Originally posted by jhn7537

Obama invested our money into GM, GM is trading today at less than $23 per share and the government's remaining 500 million shares would have to sell for around $53 per share for the U.S. to break even. Is this a success or failure?

Really man.

You think the purpose was to make money on the Stock Market?

This is the Real Question.

Is GM still making cars and trucks?

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Money better be a VERY important part of any type of bailout, if not, then what's the point?? If anything, Obama is just jeopardizing our countries future... The Govt. needs to treat its spending like a business... Everyone today can't be helped, everyone doesnt deserve an equal share of the pie, if that's what you want then you obviously want a socialist america... Life isn't always fair and life isn't always equal...

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

Money better be a VERY important part of any type of bailout, if not, then what's the point?? If anything, Obama is just jeopardizing our countries future... The Govt. needs to treat its spending like a business... Everyone today can't be helped, everyone doesnt deserve an equal share of the pie, if that's what you want then you obviously want a socialist america... Life isn't always fair and life isn't always equal...

In an ideal world. The bailout has many more points though than just to make money. It's to save the company. If there weren't bailouts at times the country would be worst off. If banks, companies etc were not bailed out then the population would lose a ton of money, and not have access to the resources that were helped out by the bailouts.

If you don't understand...basically Obama was giving money to GM, etc to let them continue on as companies instead of watching them drop out completely.

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Staying with the topic that he saved the auto industry, I just read something quite interesting.. Would you consider the passage below a success or a failure?

Obama invested our money into GM, GM is trading today at less than $23 per share and the government's remaining 500 million shares would have to sell for around $53 per share for the U.S. to break even. Is this a success or failure?

Obama bailed out the unions at our expense, nationalized GM and three years later this "saved" industry still owes the taxpayers tens of BILLIONS, so basically we still have the same situation - stagnant auto industry, burdensome regulations, and a labor market that is so over-priced that it can't compete with the rest of the world. The auto bailout was just more buying votes by the dems.

edit on 30-9-2012 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)

If we're gonna randomly cherrypick data to try and score political points, how about this:

Chrysler: repaid $9.2 billion, fulfilling its debt obligations to the U.S. and Canadian governments, and is now owned by Italian automaker Fiat (58.5%) and a health care trust for UAW retirees (41.5%). Overall, taxpayers lost $1.3 billion on the Chrysler bailout. In full recovery mode, Chrysler is currently the fastest-growing carmaker in the world.

www.forbes.com...

Originally posted by Ghostx

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

Money better be a VERY important part of any type of bailout, if not, then what's the point?? If anything, Obama is just jeopardizing our countries future... The Govt. needs to treat its spending like a business... Everyone today can't be helped, everyone doesnt deserve an equal share of the pie, if that's what you want then you obviously want a socialist america... Life isn't always fair and life isn't always equal...

In an ideal world. The bailout has many more points though than just to make money. It's to save the company. If there weren't bailouts at times the country would be worst off. If banks, companies etc were not bailed out then the population would lose a ton of money, and not have access to the resources that were helped out by the bailouts.

If you don't understand...basically Obama was giving money to GM, etc to let them continue on as companies instead of watching them drop out completely.

Or let a Mitt Romney come along, "harvest the value" of the companies, and leave hundreds unemployed.

I guess the question is just what is Torture?

Most of our POWs would say that endless boredom as their biggest torture that they had to endured. Sleep deprivation is also extremely torturous too and can actually kill you. When we look at water boarding (that is what we are talking about here right?) it is a form of torture just like anything else we do, BUT at what point is all this unacceptable.

The truth of the matter is weatherboarding does work, as does other non-invasive techniques. Causing the automatic drowning response while not actually drowning is extremely uncomfortable to say the least, but we are always on that thin line as to what is too much and what just doesn't do anything.

Obama says it is over the line...Romney says...wait..he is not President so we really do not know what he will do even though many of you act like he has been in some kind of active administration for years, well unless he was using weatherboarding techniques as Governor.

You guys draw extreme hypothetical conclusions by cherry picking anything you could possibly deem related to you biased views. Try that with Obama too and see what you get...

reply to post by longlostbrother


How am I cherry picking data??? You said Obama saved the auto industry, I responded with those figures... Maybe Obama saved the auto industry (while securing UAW votes) but he saved it at the expense of the tax payers... Looking at the figures to date, it wasn't a solid business decision, but I guess time will only tell...

And I'll say this now for everyone who's probably thinking I'm some right-side nut.. I'm not... I'm not a huge Romney supporter, I'm also not an Obama supporter, I'm an independent pegged in the middle who's sick by the two choices i have this November...

I just hate this praise that Obama gets like he's one of the best presidents ever.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by Ghostx

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

Money better be a VERY important part of any type of bailout, if not, then what's the point?? If anything, Obama is just jeopardizing our countries future... The Govt. needs to treat its spending like a business... Everyone today can't be helped, everyone doesnt deserve an equal share of the pie, if that's what you want then you obviously want a socialist america... Life isn't always fair and life isn't always equal...

In an ideal world. The bailout has many more points though than just to make money. It's to save the company. If there weren't bailouts at times the country would be worst off. If banks, companies etc were not bailed out then the population would lose a ton of money, and not have access to the resources that were helped out by the bailouts.

If you don't understand...basically Obama was giving money to GM, etc to let them continue on as companies instead of watching them drop out completely.

Or let a Mitt Romney come along, "harvest the value" of the companies, and leave hundreds unemployed.

If companies mismanage their business why is it the tax payers duty to bail them out??

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I guess the question is just what is Torture?

When we look at our POWs most would rule endless boredom as the biggest torture they endured. Sleep deprivation is also extremely torturous too and can actually kill you. When we look at water boarding (that is what we are talking about here right?) it is torture just as anything else we do, BUT at what point is all this unacceptable.

The truth of the matter is weatherboarding does work, as does other non-invasive techniques. Causing the automatic drowning response while not actually drowning is extremely uncomfortable to say the least, but we are always on that thin line as to what is too much and what just doesn't do anything.

Obama says it is over the line...Romney says...wait..he is not President so we really do not know what he will do even though many of you act like he has been in some kind of active administration for years, well unless he was using weatherboarding techniques as Governor.

You guys draw extreme hypothetical conclusions by cherry picking anything you could possibly deem related to you biased views. Try that with Obama too and see what you get...

Waterboarding generated more bad data than good under Bush.

Which means it did NOT work.

On top of that ,most of the GOOD info came from good old fashioned interrogation techniques.

Originally posted by jhn7537

If companies mismanage their business why is it the tax payers duty to bail them out??

You would have to ask Bush43, to the tune of 780Billion for Wall Street Companies.

It seemed like a good idea to him.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by jhn7537

If companies mismanage their business why is it the tax payers duty to bail them out??

You would have to ask Bush43, to the tune of 780Billion for Wall Street Companies.

It seemed like a good idea to him.

I agree with zero bailouts, it doesnt matter if we have a republican or democrat in office, if a company mismanages their business, then they fail.. Too big? Dont care.... No one deserves a handout in life...

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by Ghostx

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

Money better be a VERY important part of any type of bailout, if not, then what's the point?? If anything, Obama is just jeopardizing our countries future... The Govt. needs to treat its spending like a business... Everyone today can't be helped, everyone doesnt deserve an equal share of the pie, if that's what you want then you obviously want a socialist america... Life isn't always fair and life isn't always equal...

In an ideal world. The bailout has many more points though than just to make money. It's to save the company. If there weren't bailouts at times the country would be worst off. If banks, companies etc were not bailed out then the population would lose a ton of money, and not have access to the resources that were helped out by the bailouts.

If you don't understand...basically Obama was giving money to GM, etc to let them continue on as companies instead of watching them drop out completely.

Or let a Mitt Romney come along, "harvest the value" of the companies, and leave hundreds unemployed.

If companies mismanage their business why is it the tax payers duty to bail them out??

First off, that happens all the time, on a myriad of levels. It's a long part of the history of business... if you want to selectively start caring about this at the auto bailout, so be it, but it's HUGELY selective.

Second, it happens for two reasons:

- many businesses fail for reasons unrelated to mismanagement
- protecting employees and businesses is seen by many, on the right an left, as a good use of taxpayer dollars

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by jhn7537

If companies mismanage their business why is it the tax payers duty to bail them out??

You would have to ask Bush43, to the tune of 780Billion for Wall Street Companies.

It seemed like a good idea to him.

I agree with zero bailouts, it doesnt matter if we have a republican or democrat in office, if a company mismanages their business, then they fail.. Too big? Dont care.... No one deserves a handout in life...

Zero bailouts is both infeasible and would never happen.

In fact one of the most common types of "bailout" is bankruptcy, which says hundreds of businesses a year, around the world.

reply to post by longlostbrother


So essentially, companies should never worry about bad business decisions because there's always a bailout waiting... That's good business

And Im not just picking on the auto bailout, I mentioned earlier i hate all bailouts, the auto one is just one of the more recent ones to date...

Originally posted by longlostbrother
Obama is a better President than many believe, and in time will be seen as such.

There is only one shield that even in time will prevent Obama from going down in history as the worst POTUS ever.

Originally posted by longlostbrother
He saved the US auto-industry, he managed to get a lot more people healthcare, he managed to pull the trigger - so to speak - on Osama, he's managed to not get the US involved in another major war (so far).

You need to stop ingesting the Kool-Aid my friend.

The auto industry in the US was not “saved” by Obama. He simply used our money to pay back his union friends for getting him a job with some kickin perks, government motors is still not making money because they make crap cars and people get paid 70.00 an hour to perform repetitive semi-skilled tasks therefore they are overpriced.

He has thus far caused more people to lose healthcare and for the price of premiums for those that do have it to go up by a huge amount, the “torture” mentioned in this thread was the only reason he knew where to “pull that trigger”, and he involved the US military assets both air and ground in the toppling of a sovereign head of state without consulting congress in any way.

Originally posted by longlostbrotherPretty ok.

Seems rather crappy to me…

Originally posted by longlostbrotherAnd on top of that, between his first budget and now, the unemployment rate has dropped and the US went from haemorrhaging jobs under Bush, to gaining jobs.

The Obama administration has never gotten a “budget” approved even when they controlled all three offices required to pass one. The “budget” he submitted for this year was received not one vote in the Senate from neither a Democrat nor a Republican – I’m sure it was a winner.

The only reason the unemployment rate is going down is because of the way the number is figured. The calculation purposely ignores those who have exceeded 99 weeks of compensation, those who have taken a part time underpaying job for which they are overqualified, those who simply gave up and quit looking and retired early, the real under/unemployment rate in the US is somewhere between 16 and 22 percent depending on whose numbers you use.

Originally posted by longlostbrotherPerfect? No.

Not by a long shot…

Originally posted by longlostbrotherBetter than George W Bush? Yep. Worst President Ever? Only if you're a partisan hack.

Your first point is debatable – Obama has overseen an increase of the US debt by more in his one term than all the other Presidents before him in total. Awesome! I don't know about you but personally no one I know is thriving under his reign.

He will go down as a great POTUS for one reason only – he was black. No historian will dare label him as anything other than a success for that reason alone.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Or let a Mitt Romney come along, "harvest the value" of the companies, and leave hundreds unemployed.

Lets say Romney invested into 77 companies that were ALL on the edge of failing. 30% still failed no matter what they did, so that leaves about 50 plus companies that actually survived and are still doing well today..i.e. many jobs for Americans...

Let's say Romney caused 100s of people to be out of work, and let's say Obama missed handled a 800 billion dollar package to restart the economy... On one hand how many jobs did Romney save when you made 50 plus failing companies successful again, and on the other hand how many jobs did Obama save by burning up 800 billion dollars...lol get real...