Official: Romney a moron

[JumboShrimp]

Sorry, but comparing anything that's happening in the US or even the EU to socialism is just sickening. Moderating and regualting the economy in a fair manner is social, but it's not socialism.
The alternative is a rampage of leeches like Romney, who pay minimum taxes and live on bankrupting companies. That's not what I want.
I actually have a personal experience with Bain Capital, one of the largest companies in my hometown in Germany was one of their targets once. A perfectly healthy company, market leader in Europe, with a lot of patents. What Bain wanted to do was to buy the company, close it down and sell the patents for a profit.
I'm very glad that they failed at gaining a majority stake in the company and had to retreat.

It's beyond me how anyone can trust their country to a person that earned his fortune in such a despicable manner.

I have experience in Private Equity myself, not from reading about it in newspaper, but working for one as a consultant, in fact one of the biggest ones.  I had some interactions with some of the partners, and that's why I could give you the assurance these guys are the brightest of the bright.  And I am not easily impressed.

I am taking the example of Bain Capital in your town with a grain of salt.  Patents are rarely worth more than the company making products with them, unless the company is in trouble.

PE firms only extremely rarely do hostile takeovers, and even under a hostile takeover, shareholders voluntarily part with shares in the company for the price offered.

Leveraged boyout (LBO) is not as rare, but still not a norm.  It is done with consent of board of directors, who may have approached the PE firm.  Shareholders still have an option to sell or not to sell.  I personally am not crazy about leveraged buyouts, ending up with overlevereged companies just as much as I am not in favor of overleveraged governments, overleveraged individuals.

Far more common is PE deal is a company is in trouble, the company goes to PE firms for help.  Or, a company may be stalled due to lack of access to capital, which PE company has.    You don't go in as a PE firm to bankrupt a company.  That's what happens when you fail.  You go in to increase the value of the company, that is when you make the big bucks.

The PE company, at least the funds I was primarily dealing with commercial real estate, hotels etc.  They would buy one that was not performing, or unfinished, undervalued, in financial trouple.  The partners managing the deal would put up some of their money, some borrowed money for refurbishment, completion, they may bring in new management.  And later, when value is increased, profitability is increased, they would sell it for profit.  If neither is achieved (greater value, greater profitability), or if the property went into bankruptcy, PE company makes nothing or even loses money.

Saying Romney in particular, or PE companies in general "live on bankrupting companies" is as close to pure BS as one can get.  And again, I strongly doubt you came up with it on your own, it was probably fed to you by the media.

Anyway, with PE companies, everything is voluntary, if you want to deal with a PE company, fine, if you don't want to deal with a PE company, fine as well...

Some people have trouble with the concept of ownership.  You own something, it is yours, you do with it what you want.  You may have a unique classic car, you may break it up, sell it for parts, or make some modifications to it and ruin it as a result.   Or you may have a body and face of Claudia Schiffer, and you ruin with some tatoos or body piercing.  Someone may find it appalling and despicable.  But it is your car, your body, you do what you want with it.

If you own a company, you own it the same way.  You want to sell it to public through an IPO, like Microsoft, Apple etc did?  Fine.  You want to sell it privately?  Fine.  You want to sell it to a PE firm?  Fine.  You want to shut it down?  Fine.

If you own shares of a company, the same concept applies.

[Infinity]

If you own a company, you own it the same way.  You want to sell it to public through an IPO, like Microsoft, Apple etc did?  Fine.  You want to sell it privately?  Fine.  You want to sell it to a PE firm?  Fine.  You want to shut it down?  Fine.

No, it's not. This attitude towards it is just sad. I have a company, I employ 37 people, most of them have a college degree or even a Phd (that's saying a higher formal education then I have myself, I never went to college) and I pay 6-figure salaries to a good share of them, so I'm not exactly talking peanuts here.
Sure, I own the company on the paper, I can do with it what I want, but I don't because I have a responsibility for my employees. If I would have to sell my company to a bunch of leeches like Bain, I'd be so ashamed it's not possible to put into words. I could not look a single employee into the eye. This attitude is the ultimate manifestation of entrepreneurial failure.
Running a company is NOT solely a monetary thing, it has a social component, and PE firms are completely devoid of this factor.

Also, I cannot quite accept your attitude towards media in general. My business is PR, so I know quite well what it takes to influence media and I also know which channels are easily manipulated and which are not. Some of them are very easy to haul in, and they exist on both sides of the spectrum. But there still are publications that are not easily manipulated, that publish a variety of views on certain developments and do not serve a fixed political spectrum. Many of them are very well reputed such as Der Spiegel in Germany. I can assure you that this magazine is NOT influenced by any political party or a single persons political views. And I am also quite certain that such channels exist in the US, I would be very surprised if the New York Times was not along those publications.
You just have to know where to look for uninhibited information, and if you do know where to look you can still find it. Of course you will  not find that at Fox or Current TV.

[JumboShrimp]

No, it's not. This attitude towards it is just sad. I have a company, I employ 37 people, most of them have a college degree or even a Phd (that's saying a higher formal education then I have myself, I never went to college) and I pay 6-figure salaries to a good share of them, so I'm not exactly talking peanuts here.
Sure, I own the company on the paper, I can do with it what I want, but I don't because I have a responsibility for my employees. If I would have to sell my company to a bunch of leeches like Bain, I'd be so ashamed it's not possible to put into words. I could not look a single employee into the eye. This attitude is the ultimate manifestation of entrepreneurial failure.
Running a company is NOT solely a monetary thing, it has a social component, and PE firms are completely devoid of this factor.

It is your company, I am not going to tell you what to do with it.  You may be too young to think this way, but one day, you may become too old, possibly ill, just unable to run it.  Your company may have value indpendent of you running it.  It will be only logical to contemplate all your options: merger, sale, etc.

I have been on the other side on several occasions.  Buying companies.  3 in total.  2 were basically bakrupt, 1 had the owner retiring.  If we did not buy these companies, they would be out of business in matter weeks or months, with all their employees out of work.  As a result of our acquisitions,  many of those employees are still with us.

I strongly doubt a PE company would be interesting in buying a PR firm, but just for the sake of argument, suppose they were interested.  Suppose they bought it from you, paying you money.  What would be in it for them to bankrupt the company and shut it down?  This just does not compute.  They would look to sell it in the end for more money, perhaps closing a deal with another larger PR firm that you were unable to close.

PE firms provide a service.  You are free to use it or not use it.  

Also, I cannot quite accept your attitude towards media in general. My business is PR, so I know quite well what it takes to influence media and I also know which channels are easily manipulated and which are not. Some of them are very easy to haul in, and they exist on both sides of the spectrum. But there still are publications that are not easily manipulated, that publish a variety of views on certain developments and do not serve a fixed political spectrum. Many of them are very well reputed such as Der Spiegel in Germany. I can assure you that this magazine is NOT influenced by any political party or a single persons political views. And I am also quite certain that such channels exist in the US, I would be very surprised if the New York Times was not along those publications.
You just have to know where to look for uninhibited information, and if you do know where to look you can still find it. Of course you will  not find that at Fox or Current TV.

The whole species of impartial journalist is extinct.  Everybody has an agenda now, you need to know that.  Once you know that, you may still get some useful information from these biased sources, but you need to be clever enough to know from which angle you are being conned.

New York Times is perhaps the best, or should I say, the worst example.  The job of every New York Times employee is to elect Obama.  So every story in that paper is carefully crafted to reflect positively on Obama, negatively on Romney.  The way every article is written, where it is placed in the paper, it is all calculated.  For example, after decades of existance of PE funds, generally archane topic relegated to the business section, now NY Times runs multiple front page stories.  And now suddenly, PE funds becomes the devil incarnate.  Coincidence?

Let's take today's NY Times.  Front Page above the the fold - a damage control article about the Libya fiasco titled.  "Clinton Suggests Link to Qaeda Offshoot in Deadly Libya Attack".

This is 2 weeks after the fact, something that was clear even to a child that a RPG and mortar attack on US diplomats on 9/11 was a terrorist act.  After 2 weeks of Obama administration lying about it.

So it does not say "After 2 weeks of lying, Obama administration finally admits Libya attack was a terrorist act".

No.  It is a damage control article on behalf of Obama administration, when denials by Obama, and NY Times trying to bury the story became laughable....

And as far as placement (surprised!) the story disappeared from the home page of NY Times web site, and now is buried somewhere deep on the site...

[Infinity]

That's just not true. The New York Times is full of criticism towards the Obama administration, and not very shy with it. I read the NYT. You can't tell me it's praising every single bit of Obamas work, it just doesn't. A good publication does a very important thing, which is covering controversial topics from both ends. The NYT does just that, as does Der Spiegel and I'm sure plenty of other high quality publications in other countries. Maybe not China.
If the NYT was just there to praise the Obama administration, then what would have been it's motivation to be one of the channels through which the Wikileaks stuff was published? That does not make any sense. This paper is as free a piece of free journalism as possible.
Obviously, every writer still has his own views, but that's where having different voices on the same topic comes in handy. That's the publishers job, and they do a good job.

This is 2 weeks after the fact, something that was clear even to a child that a RPG and mortar attack on US diplomats on 9/11 was a terrorist act.  After 2 weeks of Obama administration lying about it.

Where did they lie about it? It's not a governments job to speculate about possible sources of the attack, it's their job to ascertain it and THEN comment, or better act, on it.

[JumboShrimp]

Where did they lie about it? It's not a governments job to speculate about possible sources of the attack, it's their job to ascertain it and THEN comment, or better act, on it.

Then the CIA, FBI, NSA are no better than the husband in the following joke:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A man is talking to his best friend about married life. "You know," he
says, "I really trust my wife, and I think she has always been
faithful to me. But there's always that doubt."

His friend says, "Yeah, I know what you mean."

A couple of weeks later the man has to go out of town on business.
Before he goes, he gets together with his friend. "While I'm away,
could you do me a favor? Could you watch my house and see if there is
anything fishy going on? I mean, I trust my wife but there's always
that doubt." The friend agrees to help out, and the man leaves town.
Two weeks later he comes back and meets his friend. "So did anything
happen?"

"I have some bad news for you," says the friend. "The day after you
left I saw a strange car pull up in front of your house. The horn
honked and your wife ran out and got into the car and they drove away.
Later, after dark, the car came back. I saw your wife and a strange
man get out. They went into the house and I saw a light go on, so I
ran over and looked in the window. Your wife was kissing the man. Then
he took off his shirt. Then she took off her blouse. Then they turned
off the light."

"Then what happened?" says the man.

"I don't know. It was too dark to see."

"Damn, you see what I mean? There's always that doubt."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What was Obama reaction to Fort Hood army base shooting where a Muslim shot 13 people, shouting "allahu akbar"

"This morning I met with FBI Director Mueller and the relevant agencies to discuss their ongoing investigation into what caused one individual to turn his gun on fellow servicemen and women," he said. "We don't know all of the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all of the facts.

Very similar to a pre-planned, organized attack on 9/11/2012, involving RPG and accurate mortar fire:
"Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated "

Do you see the pattern here?
And where is the lie?  Obama administration maintained for 2+ weeks that it was a spontaeous reaction to a 6 month old video.  It was clear even to my pizza man immediately what it was.

[JumboShrimp]

Just one more thing to add (a clincher) on the Libya story:

In addition to well known location of the US consulate, there was a secret "safe house" which came under accurate mortar attack.  So this was a well executed military operation.

The fact that it was a pre-planned operation was first mentioned by commander of Libyan forces in the city of Benghazi and later the president of Libya.

[Infinity]

Do you see the pattern here?
And where is the lie?  Obama administration maintained for 2+ weeks that it was a spontaeous reaction to a 6 month old video.  It was clear even to my pizza man immediately what it was.

Really? You may think it was. However, there are several things to consider:
1) People in this kind of countries are very uneducated and easily influenced. There is a reason why most of these riots happen on fridays, it's because they are told to riot in their friday prayer by the Imam.
That's why it happens. The triggers are almost always as trivial as this video.
2) Libya has been in a state of civil war (still is if you ask me) and a lot of heavy weapons have been looted from the army's arsenal. Anyone could have a mortar or stuff like that. Heck, nobody can account for RPGs, what's a mortar compared to that?
3) The safe house being hit could easily have been coincidence. After all, who knows how good they were at operating the mortar? It's a very inprecise weapon.

[JumboShrimp]

Really? You may think it was. However, there are several things to consider:
1) People in this kind of countries are very uneducated and easily influenced. There is a reason why most of these riots happen on fridays, it's because they are told to riot in their friday prayer by the Imam.
That's why it happens. The triggers are almost always as trivial as this video.
2) Libya has been in a state of civil war (still is if you ask me) and a lot of heavy weapons have been looted from the army's arsenal. Anyone could have a mortar or stuff like that. Heck, nobody can account for RPGs, what's a mortar compared to that?
3) The safe house being hit could easily have been coincidence. After all, who knows how good they were at operating the mortar? It's a very inprecise weapon.

"Damn, you see what I mean? There's always that doubt."  


Libya rescue squad ran into fierce, accurate ambush


...Captain Fathi al-Obeidi, whose special operations unit was ordered by Libya's authorities to meet an eight-man force at Benghazi airport, said that after his men and the U.S. squad had found the American survivors who had evacuated the blazing consulate, the ostensibly secret location in an isolated villa came under an intense and highly accurate mortar barrage.

"I really believe that this attack was planned," he said, adding to suggestions by other Libyan officials that at least some of the hostility towards the Americans was the work of experienced combatants. "The accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any regular revolutionaries."   ...


..."It began to rain down on us," Obeidi told Reuters, describing the moment the attack began - just as the Libyan security force was starting up the 10 pickup trucks and sedans they had brought to ferry the Americans to the airport.

"About six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa," he said. "During this firing, one of the marines whom I had brought with me was wounded and fell to the ground"

As I was dragging the wounded marine to safety, some marines who were located on the roof of the villa as snipers shouted and the rest of the marines all hit the ground.

"A mortar hit the side of the house. One of the marines from the roof went flying and fell on top of us."
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL5E8KCMYB20120912?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0

[brique]

I suppose we shouldn't assume that any of these militants has had any form of military training ; not in Libya : none would have any military skills at all : of course being 'rag-heads', none of them would ever spot a 'safe-house', cos none of them live near it or would wonder why some nice house lies empty but maintained, or be smart enough to be watching a US base, or notice any 'rescue squad' despatched from it, or be able to use a mobile phone to report that, or its direction of travel, route, location, etc. : nope, all that requires the sinister skills of...something sinister... yeah...

Worse of all, these militants have some serious weaponry, almost as much as some need for 'home defence' back in the States : very sinister. They had mortars! Where would these guys have got them if not from a sinister source! No mention of what size mortars, but lets not assume they were the plain old infantry-portable size carried by infantry the world over since WW2 : Libya wouldnt have any of those ; not unless they found some on a WW2 battlefield, maybe... Accurate fire too, by the gods, cant have been Libyans then, they only know how to loose off whole clips into the sky : must have been some sinister foreign-backed elements..

Still, there is room for doubt : might well have been a spetnaz-trained elite squad of Mad mullahs controlled by Putin from his lair beneath a volcano in the outskirts of Moscow... you never know... does he like cats, them crazy muthas usually do...

[Talentz]

Do you see the pattern here?
And where is the lie?  Obama administration maintained for 2+ weeks that it was a spontaeous reaction to a 6 month old video.  It was clear even to my pizza man immediately what it was.

Assuming your right in your opinion Swrimpy, care to speculate on why the administration did this?



Talentz

[exchlbg]

I can´t see your point either.I could also speculate about why this and that stupid video happened in the right moment for Romney campaign.

[Frogiton]

I took 3 minutes to copy and paste the headlines from each of suspected liberal news outlets. No modification.

NBC Politics: "Nine states, nine leads for the president" (In an unofficial NBC-viewer/reader poll)

CBS News: "Could seniors abandon Romney?"

The New York Times: "Obama Fills in Blanks of Romney's Plans, and G.O.P. Sees Falsehoods"

CNN: "Analysis: Polling criticism unfounded" (In regard to conservative criticism of polls. Essentially an entire article saying that conservatives should shut up and accept that Romney is losing")


Dang, I didn't even have to dig or make any arguments. The news outlets made the argument for me.  

Assuming your right in your opinion Swrimpy, care to speculate on why the administration did this?

I can answer this. In my AP Government class, our teacher asked us our opinions of what should be the reaction for this situation. About 10 people answered with 10 completely different answers. I know this isn't a valid sample size for our country, but use the trend that was shown for sake of this discussion. The president and his team has figured that there is no way they can please everybody in the country, which is completely true. So instead of deciding on a reaction to the situation, they lied and said they never knew about it (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/) and put it aside in order to conserve their rising poll trend. It was a great strategy in all honesty, however it leaves SEALs and an ambassador dead, our country now looks weak to counter terrorist attacks, and allies are skeptical. But hey, he's doing good in the polls.

[Frogiton]

Just updated NYT. Here's the first paragraphs of the new headline.

[exchlbg]

This was a very serious incident. I would encourage every regime to think twice and really investigate what was going on, before babbling like you and pizzaman: "clear thing,terrorists, Al-Qaida, send armed forces."
What was clear from the beginning ,was that "Arab Spring" is nothing the western world should be too enthusiastic about. Even my pizzaman could predict that throwing those tyrans over would cause a vacuum of power. And that vacuum was not soon to be filled by some kind of "modern western democracies", but chaos,anarchy and mullahs taking over.
The only thing I blame the actual government for is, that the ambassador and intelligence obviously were kind of blue-eyed, that they were unable to protect themselves.

[Infinity]

Just updated NYT. Here's the first paragraphs of the new headline.

So? This is a bare fact, what else should they report?

[Maarten Otto]

Hey guess what...

If a woman is raped and gets pregnant... It's the will of god...
Good lock USA with such an idiot.

Nothing against religious people... But If you think the same way, then imagine your 16 year old daughter to be that woman.

[swiftus27]

It's up the the electorate... Polls start closing in about 51 hours. 

[LemonButt]

Hey guess what...

If a woman is raped and gets pregnant... It's the will of god...
Good lock USA with such an idiot.

Nothing against religious people... But If you think the same way, then imagine your 16 year old daughter to be that woman.

And if liberals/Democrats had their way, no one would be allowed have guns to defend themselves from rapists.  Nothing against pacifists, but if you think people don't have the right to defend themselves, then imagine your wife being defenseless and overpowered by an unarmed rapist.

[Troxartas86]

I'm a committed third party guy because the politics of my country disgust me but I will add that the Romney campaign actually called my sister in New Jersey to ask for donations last week. She told the guy where she was and he just went silent. She got his supervisor and told them they really need to keep track of what numbers they call and where they are located. They are going to be voting in tents over there.

[exchlbg]

And if liberals/Democrats had their way, no one would be allowed have guns to defend themselves from rapists.  Nothing against pacifists, but if you think people don't have the right to defend themselves, then imagine your wife being defenseless and overpowered by an unarmed rapist.

Who would be the first not to be armed in that example? The rapist? And if so, you think an attacked woman has any chance opening her purse to search for her purse gun to start shooting and rapist is waiting for her to do so? Who of those two would own that weapon after the act? Sorry, but try to start thinking. I don´t believe national rape numbers have changed or will change or are different from any other civilized country with our without weapons. Same as rest of crime didn´t vanish because you own weapons, on the contrary. Where do you live? In Arkansas 1860? In a brazilian favela?