As a Life Long Republican, I Will Not Vote For Romney

Rabbit

Has No Life - Lives on TB
No rabbit, what it really comes down to is how the globalists are controlling what you think and do. Think of this election as Ringling Brothers circus. In Ring number one, we have race baiting. In Ring number two we have the economy and off-shored jobs. In Ring number three we have religion. And these three rings keep the sheep "fully engaged in the system" (aka "energizing the base"). The sheep watch the circus and think that voting for the clown who manages the three rings "best" is somehow going to "save the country".

Freakin bloody pitiful....

I happen to believe that if a vote for Romney gets not only Obama out of office, but Valerie Jarret, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and the rest of his minions it would be a good first start.

The Globalists and the Illuminati have been around for a long time, but I don't think they have ever been this close before, and I also believe we are closer to getting the h3!! blown out of us on our own shores than we ever have been before too.

You don't believe they used the race card all the way with Obama and they are still using it in this election?

I think you are the one drinking the Koolaid and yeah you can vote for anybody you want to. You can vote by spray painting a name on the side of an empty building for all I care and it will count just about as much.

I want this current bunch in Washington DC out, period.
 

Vicki

Girls With Guns Member
So who's to say Romney can't turn around and reinstall each and every one of the ones you just named Rabbit? He would have that authority would he not? I'm not seeing how Romney and O are on different paths what so ever. They seem to be on the same exact paths to me. This is what I see and what concerns me greatly..

Universal insurance coverage --- the same

Patriot Act --- The same

NDAA --- The same

Endless Wars --- The same

Bailing out the banks --- The same

Habius Corpus --- The same

Warrentless Wire Tapping --- The same

Federal Reserve --- The same

Can kill any American at will... the same


Please someone explain to me where they are different?
 

TerryK

TB Fanatic
Unplug from the system. You are playing into their game... Focus your attention where you can make a difference.
Like I said, it's already game, set, match... This country is done. The principles that is was founded on are no longer in place except in catchy slogansng .

If it doesn't make any difference, then stay home and stop trying so hard to convince everyone else not to vote. Me thinks you don't quite believe your own bullshit. :lol:

Then don't read it and post on it, repeatedly. Hopefully, this is your last reply ... cuz it's kinda annoying.
Here is true wisdom...
NOT
None of the Paulbots have any idea what to do now that their messiah has lost. I fully expect to see some of them buying a compound and calling it Heavens Gate, and reading about them in the news someday. You have to admit, the irrational attacks on anyone who disagrees with Paul in the slightest fits the cult profile to a T.



Just unbelievable that so many are still so willfully ignorant... Nothing in this world is more dangerous than willful ignorance.
I've posted my answer no less than three times...And, they look upon us now with anger and disgust...
We all just feel sorry for all the disappointed Paulites. Their whole world circled aroung Ron Paul. All of your posts are calling people dumb stupid and ignorant. No rational thought, just hatred like someone possessed.I hope you find peace once Ron Paul fades from the scene.

He was a small, now bitter, man compared to his excellent and big ideas. He just wasn't up to the task. He didn't have the leadership ability to accomplish them, nor it appears, the character, now that he is retiring. I hope his son does better.
 

momof23goats

Deceased
Ragnarok ,sounds like you got your feelings hurt, your guy didn't get the nomination, so your packing up you toys and going home, pleaseeeeeeeeeeee, go ahead, bare this in mind, if yo u don't vote for him, you are giving a vote to the head Kenyan in the white house.

look RON Paul didn't get it, neither did some other people, so lick your wounds, gripe and complain, but if you don't vote for romney, your giving your vote to O.
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
For those that think that they can simply "write in" a name and cast a vote I would first check out your state's election laws for write in candidates. There are filing dates that have to be met well in advance of the presidential election. Unless Dr. Paul filed the correct paperwork as far back as May, June, and July thinking that he wouldn't get elected at the RNC then he is not a viable candidate in most states.

Another thing to be careful of: In some states one invalid mark on a voter submission can invalidate ALL of the voter card, sheet, etc.

So, before getting all riled up and saying that you are going to do x, y, or z please take the time to review the election law in your state if you have not done so already. Dr. Paul has already missed the filing deadline for Florida unless his campaign did it as a matter of procedure.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
To the :sheep: on this thread, voting for "someone else" is the exact same thing as not voting at all. The ultimate in peer pressure and bullying. Some of you are soon to be removed from this tread if it keeps up.
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
To the :sheep: on this thread, voting for "someone else" is the exact same thing as not voting at all. The ultimate in peer pressure and bullying. Some of you are soon to be removed from this tread if it keeps up.

Dennis, folks need to check their state's election law. It is pretty simple to google. There was a lot about it back in 2008 and before. It is an issue almost every election cycle since I've been voting. Lots of folks are making assumptions and no matter the topic that is never a good idea. A few states do not even allow write ins for the US presidential vote.
 

Shacknasty Shagrat

Has No Life - Lives on TB
So who's to say Romney can't turn around and reinstall each and every one of the ones you just named Rabbit? He would have that authority would he not? I'm not seeing how Romney and O are on different paths what so ever. They seem to be on the same exact paths to me. This is what I see and what concerns me greatly..

Universal insurance coverage --- the same

Patriot Act --- The same

NDAA --- The same

Endless Wars --- The same

Bailing out the banks --- The same

Habius Corpus --- The same

Warrentless Wire Tapping --- The same

Federal Reserve --- The same

Can kill any American at will... the same


Please someone explain to me where they are different?

vicki,
I can't see any differences but,

I can add a few more similarities.
Robust Gun Control
Ultra Liberal Non Traditional Marriage
Ultra Liberal Judicial Appointments
Crony Capitalism

Mr. Romney was a leader in the Statist Progressive agenda when Mr. Obama was but a simple community organizer.


SS
 

momof23goats

Deceased
So who's to say Romney can't turn around and reinstall each and every one of the ones you just named Rabbit? He would have that authority would he not? I'm not seeing how Romney and O are on different paths what so ever. They seem to be on the same exact paths to me. This is what I see and what concerns me greatly..

Universal insurance coverage --- the same

Patriot Act --- The same

NDAA --- The same

Endless Wars --- The same

Bailing out the banks --- The same

Habius Corpus --- The same

Warrentless Wire Tapping --- The same

Federal Reserve --- The same

Can kill any American at will... the same


Please someone explain to me where they are different?

i didn't know that Romney had given his views on these. I don't think he has. I liked last night when he said, we can drill our own oil, gas, and coal. and he is right, we have one of the largest if not the largest coal beds in the world, we need to be using it. as well as our own gas , oil, and stop depending on other nations, this alone will put many people to work. and soon too.

IF he has given his view on all of the above, then give a link to the site please.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
And if those previously stated views were EXACTLY as mentioned (they are BTW) would that matter one whit to you...?



(I didn't think so...)
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
IF you vote, you consent to be governed by the results of the election you took part in.

Some here - I'd say MOST here - were not at all pleased with the outcome of the last election. Yet you consented to be governed by the results of that election.

How about the next one? If you vote, and your favored candidate doesn't win, do you consent to be governed by the winner?

Something to think about, perhaps.

dd
===========================================

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/johnson-m1.1.1.html

If You Vote
by Melanie M. Johnson

Several of my Facebook friends have given a "like" to Mitt Romney, including a few former Ron Paul supporters whom I got to know during our historic "takeover" of the Minnesota GOP conventions earlier this year. To conservatives who don’t think much of Romney (which, according to polls, seems to be a lot of them), I’d like to say "please reconsider." And to ex-Ron Paul people who are supporting him out of "anybody but Obama" desperation, I’d like to say, "You should know better!"

The conventional wisdom on voting is that you should always vote because it is your "patriotic duty," and that your vote should be for one of the two major political parties, otherwise you’re "throwing your vote away." I disagree. I think people should vote their values, which might mean voting for an "unelectable" third party candidate, or perhaps not voting at all.

I had a political science teacher in college who taught this, and it has stayed with me. He said that if people don’t know the issues, they are better off not voting than risking a vote for the wrong candidate. I agree wholeheartedly, and I’ll even take it a step further: when the choice is between two piles of excrement, one only slightly less foul smelling than the other, we do not have to pick one of them out of some misguided sense of patriotic obligation. If the best the major parties have to offer fall short of the principles you believe in, then it is your patriotic duty to not vote for either one of them.

I know that ousting Obama might seem like the most urgent goal, and that conservatives of all colors, shapes, and sizes ought now unite in this common purpose. But let’s think this through, because there are a number of reasons why it might be a bad strategy.

First of all, a vote for Romney does not ensure his victory. Incomprehensible as it may be, Obama is popular enough, and persuasive enough, and politically cunning enough to get re-elected. The cardboard cutout Republican Mr. Mitt is unlikely to inspire the swing voters in the swing states, which is what he needs to do to win. He has neither the charisma nor the policies to do so. People just don’t relate to him, and no amount of GOP marketing is going to fix that in any significant way. In fact, Romney just may be the GOP’s John Kerry, who ran that pointless campaign against Dubya in 2004, despite immense DFL effort to get the vote out.

But more to the point are the ideological issues involved. If we care about these ideological issues, if we have strong beliefs about what’s best for this country and how best to achieve it, then we must ask ourselves this: does the "anybody but Obama" stance support and further our cause--the cause of liberty? How far will it take us toward the goals of restoring personal freedom and having sane fiscal policies, respectful foreign policies, and limited, non-corrupt representation of the people, by the people, and for the people?

All the evidence points to "not very far." You need only look at the records of the last several presidents to see this. Under every administration since (at least) Woodrow Wilson, economic and personal freedoms have suffered. Government has ballooned to an almost unfathomable size, with no slowdown in sight. Taxes have increased and tax codes have grown more complex and convoluted. Unnecessary wars have been waged, needlessly burdening taxpayers and ending far too many lives at far too young an age. The Federal Reserve gains ever more control over the economy, printing money, setting interest rates, and creating artificial "bubbles" that ultimately end in disaster and each time inch us that much closer to economic apocalypse. The Fed and the Treasury operate hand-in-hand with Wall Street and corporate interests that benefit the powers-that-be at the expense of the middle-class taxpayer. And liberty continues to be trounced on, so much so that outrageous assaults on freedom like the Patriot Act are barely recognized anymore as the fascist, freedom-squelching policies that they are.

And the tragic truth is that both mainstream political parties support these big government policies. Despite all the posturing, mud-slinging, accusations, and general bipartisan nastiness we see in elections, both mainstream candidates are just different sides of the same, corporate-backed, PAC-financed coin. Sure, Romney will institute some different policies; he may lower a tax or two; and he may even abolish such atrocities as Obamacare. But this is vastly different than him having an actual ideology of personal freedom and limited government, which he absolutely does not. Government will not shrink under his watch. Liberty will not be restored. He may end Obama’s wars, but he is likely to start others--and by his own admission, without Congressional consent. He may—may—restore some freedoms taken by Obama, but he will strip others.

Without a foundational ideology of liberty to guide him, it can be no other way.

In order for there to be real change in the federal government, we would have to drastically re-evaluate taxation and, ideally, abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve. We would have to stop thinking that it is the government’s job to regulate the economy. We would have to stop thinking that it is the job of the United States to police the world, and withdraw our bullies--oops, I mean troops--from countries that don’t want them there. We would have to stop accepting that the leviathan devil’s stranglehold on our personal lives and choices is "business as usual" and "for our own good." In short, for there to be a real change in the federal government, there would have to be a sea change of attitude in how people view the role of government.

Maybe these changes wouldn’t have to come all at once. But for them to come at all, we have to have leaders who believe in such change, leaders governed by ideological principles about limited government and non-intervention and an unfettered economy. Barack Obama is certainly not one of those leaders, but neither is Mitt Romney. In fact, they both support different visions of a leviathan government, and are thus ideologically opposed to basic principles of liberty. For this reason, I cannot, and will not, in good conscience vote for either one of them.

Where does that leave me and people like me who care about our country’s future? What do we do? Well, here’s a great Hans-Hermann Hoppe quote I found in the article How Can You Think Voting Matters? by Will Aston:

In On the Impossibility of Limited Government…, Hoppe says:

…It is necessary to recognize that the ultimate power of every government – whether of kings or caretakers – rests solely on opinion and not on physical force. The agents of government are never more than a small proportion of the total population under their control. This implies that no government can possibly enforce its will upon the entire population unless it finds widespread support and voluntary cooperation within the nongovernmental public. It implies likewise that every government can be brought down by a mere change in public opinion, i.e., by the withdrawal of the public's consent and cooperation. (italics added)

So you see, voting is an act of support. It is how we consent to and cooperate with our government. When we vote for someone, we are agreeing to give him certain powers over our lives. If that politician does not share our values, then we become complicit in our own undoing. We become agents of the very state whose policies are antithetical to the cause of liberty. In other words, when we vote for someone who is not an ideological peer, we are supporting and furthering the cause of our own enslavement.

Don’t vote for the lesser of two evils. Don’t fall for partisan rhetoric claiming that Romney and Obama have different ideals because, where it really counts, they do not. Instead, vote for someone who stands for what you believe in. Write in a vote for Ron Paul. Or give your vote to Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who, ideologically speaking, is the only Presidential candidate who deserves our support. Or express your dissent by not voting at all. Anything is better than voting for Obama or Romney. And the same can be said for most of the other mainstream GOP/DFL choices, as well.

And above all, don’t worry about "throwing away" your vote. Contrary to popular belief, voting is not a pragmatic activity. Rather, it is a supremely ideological one. It is the best opportunity most of us ever get to voice our beliefs, our values, and our life philosophy. Following your conscience is never wrong, ever. If enough people understand this, real change can and will happen eventually. But it has to start with you and me, and it has to start now.

August 31, 2012
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
If you live in this country you are giving your consent to be governed. If you don't want to be governed by those in political office in this country then move to another country and be governed by someone else. Or, here's an idea, instead of complaining and whining, go into politics yourself and do something about it.
 

naturallysweet

Has No Life - Lives on TB
http://www.newamerica.net/files/MAClimateProtPlan0504.pdf

I don't care what they say, it's what they have done that tells the true story. As a governor, Romney authored the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan. Below are some of the goals.




SHORT-TERM
Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010.
MEDIUM-TERM
Reduce GHG emissions 10% below 1990 levels by the year 2020.
LONG-TERM
Reduce GHG emissions sufficiently to eliminate any dangerous threat to the climate; current science suggests this will require reductions as much as 75-85% below current levels. Success in meeting this long-term goal will require major scientific and technological advances – advances that will take decades to achieve, requiring action to begin now.
 

Rabbit

Has No Life - Lives on TB
We are all well informed here and I'd change a lot of things if it were in my power to do so, but it's not, and you don't have that kind of power either.

Romney said the first thing he would do if elected would be to repeal Obamacare. Will he come up with something else? Probably. Will we like it? Probably not. Will it still be better than Obamacare? Probably.

Will anyone go to jail? I hope so, but probably not. We've all been robbed and we are not going to get it back.

Romney wasn't my first choice, but like it or not that's what we've got. At least he is not McCain.

Will he do us any good, I hope so, but it might be too late.

BTW Sheep to the right and goats to the left is Biblical.
 

The Cub

Behold, I am coming soon.
IF you vote, you consent to be governed by the results of the election you took part in.

Some here - I'd say MOST here - were not at all pleased with the outcome of the last election. Yet you consented to be governed by the results of that election.

How about the next one? If you vote, and your favored candidate doesn't win, do you consent to be governed by the winner?

Something to think about, perhaps.

dd
===========================================




When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...


.
 

Vicki

Girls With Guns Member
i didn't know that Romney had given his views on these. I don't think he has. I liked last night when he said, we can drill our own oil, gas, and coal. and he is right, we have one of the largest if not the largest coal beds in the world, we need to be using it. as well as our own gas , oil, and stop depending on other nations, this alone will put many people to work. and soon too.

IF he has given his view on all of the above, then give a link to the site please.

Ranger posted this one on page 3...

Romney Obama the Same?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I didn't have to go far to find another one...

Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=related


Frankly Romney scares me as bad as Obama does. :(

Here's another write up on his accomplishments or not...



The Federal Bailout That Saved Mitt Romney
Government documents prove the candidate's mythology is just that

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829

By
Tim Dickinson
August 29, 2012 7:00 AM ET

M
itt Romney likes to say he won't "apologize" for his success in business. But what he never says is "thank you" – to the American people – for the federal bailout of Bain & Company that made so much of his outsize wealth possible.

According to the candidate's mythology, Romney took leave of his duties at the private equity firm Bain Capital in 1990 and rode in on a white horse to lead a swift restructuring of Bain & Company, preventing the collapse of the consulting firm where his career began. When The Boston Globe reported on the rescue at the time of his Senate run against Ted Kennedy, campaign aides spun Romney as the wizard behind a "long-shot miracle," bragging that he had "saved bank depositors all over the country $30 million when he saved Bain & Company."

In fact, government documents on the bailout obtained by Rolling Stone show that the legend crafted by Romney is basically a lie. The federal records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that Romney's initial rescue attempt at Bain & Company was actually a disaster – leaving the firm so financially strapped that it had "no value as a going concern." Even worse, the federal bailout ultimately engineered by Romney screwed the FDIC – the bank insurance system backed by taxpayers – out of at least $10 million. And in an added insult, Romney rewarded top executives at Bain with hefty bonuses at the very moment that he was demanding his handout from the feds.

With his selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney has made fiscal stewardship the centerpiece of his campaign. A banner at MittRomney.com declared, "We have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in." Romney also opposed the federal bailout for Detroit automakers, famously arguing that the industry should be forced into bankruptcy. Government bailouts, he insists, are "the wrong way to go."

More: Romney Is Lying. Again.

But the FDIC documents on the Bain deal – which were heavily redacted by the firm prior to release – show that as a wealthy businessman, Romney was willing to go to extremes to secure a federal bailout to serve his own interests. He had a lot at stake, both financially and politically. Had Bain & Company collapsed, insiders say, it would have dealt a grave setback to Bain Capital, where Romney went on to build a personal fortune valued at as much as $250 million. It would also have short-circuited his political career before it began, tagging Romney as a failed businessman unable to rescue his own firm.

"None of us wanted to see Bain be the laughingstock of the business world," recalls a longtime Romney lieutenant who asked not to be identified. "But Mitt's reputation was on the line."

Mitt Romney's Federal Bailout: The Documents

T
he trouble began in 1984, when Bain & Company spun off Bain Capital to engage in leveraged buyouts and put Romney in charge of the new operation. To free up money to invest in the new business, founder Bill Bain and his partners cashed out much of their stock in the consulting firm – leaving it saddled with about $200 million in debt. (Romney, though not a founder, reportedly profited from the deal.) "People will tell you that Bill raped the place clean, was greedy, didn't know when to stop," a former Bain consultant later conceded. "Did they take too much out of the firm? You bet."

The FDIC documents make clear what happened next: "Soon after the founders sold their equity," analysts reported, "business began to drop off." First came scandal: In the late 1980s, a Bain consultant became a key figure in an illegal stock manipulation scheme in London. The firm's reputation took a hit, and it fired 10 percent of its consulting force. By the time the 1989 recession began, Bain & Company found itself going broke fast. Cash flows weren't enough to service the debt imposed by the founders, and the firm could barely make payroll. In a panic, Bill Bain tapped Romney, his longtime protégé, to take the reins.

In Romney's own retelling, he casts himself as a selfless and loyal company man. "There was no upside," he told his cheerleading biographer Hugh Hewitt in 2007. "There was no particular reason to do it other than a sense of obligation and duty to an organization that had done great things for me."

In fact, Romney had a direct stake in the survival of Bain & Company: He had been working to build the Bain brand his entire career, and felt he had to save the firm at all costs. After all, Bain sold top-dollar strategic advice to big businesses about how to protect themselves from going bust. If Bain & Company went bankrupt, recalls the Romney deputy, "anyone associated with them would have looked clownish." Indeed, when a banker from Goldman Sachs urged Bain to consider bankruptcy as the obvious solution to the firm's woes, Romney's desperation began to show. He flatly refused to discuss it – and in the ensuing argument, one witness says, Romney almost ended up in a brawl when the Goldman banker advised him to "go **** yourself." For the sake of Romney's career and fortune, bankruptcy was simply not an option – no matter who got screwed in the process.

A
ccording to the government records obtained by Rolling Stone, Bain & Company "defaulted on its debt obligations" at nearly the same time that "W. Mitt Romney . . . stepped in as managing director (and later chief executive) in 1990 and led the financial restructuring intended to get the firm back on track."

Romney moved decisively, and his early efforts appeared promising. He persuaded the founders to return $25 million of the cash they had raided from Bain & Company and forgive $75 million in debt, in return for protection from most future liabilities. Romney then consolidated Bain's massive debts into a single, binding loan agreement with four banks, which received liens on Bain's assets and agreed to delay repayments on the firm's debts for two years. The federal government also signed off on the deal, since the FDIC had recently taken control of a bank that was owed $30.6 million by Bain. Romney assured creditors that the restructuring would enable Bain to "operate normally, compensate its professionals competitively" and, ultimately, pay off its debts.

Almost as soon as the FDIC agreed to the loan restructuring, however, Romney's rescue plan began to fall apart. "The company realized early on that it would be unable to hit its revenue targets or manage the debt structure," the documents reveal. By the spring of 1992, Bain's decline was perilous: "If Bain goes into default," one analyst warned the FDIC, "the bank group will need to decide whether to force Bain into bankruptcy."

With his rescue plan a bust, Romney was forced to slink back to the banks to negotiate a new round of debt relief. There was only one catch: Even though Bain & Company was deep in debt and sinking fast, the firm was actually flush with cash – most of it from the looted money that Bill Bain and other partners had given back. "Liquidity is strong based on the significant cash balance which Bain is carrying," one federal document reads.

Under normal circumstances, such ample reserves would have made liquidating Bain an attractive option: Creditors could simply divvy up the stockpiled cash and be done with the troubled firm. But Bain had inserted a poison pill in its loan agreement with the banks: Instead of being required to use its cash to pay back the firm's creditors, the money could be pocketed by Bain executives in the form of fat bonuses – starting with VPs making $200,000 and up. "The company can deplete its cash balances by making officer-bonus payments," the FDIC lamented, "and still be in compliance with the loan documents."

What's more, the bonus loophole gave Romney a perverse form of leverage: If the banks and the FDIC didn't give in to his demands and forgive much of Bain's debts, Romney would raid the firm's coffers, pushing it into the very bankruptcy that the loan agreement had been intended to avert. The losers in this game would not only be Bain's creditors – including the federal government – but the firm's nearly 1,000 employees worldwide.

I
n March 1992, according to the FDIC documents, Romney approached the banks and played the bonus card. Allow Bain to pay off its debt at a deep discount, he demanded – just 35 cents on the dollar. Otherwise, the "majority" of the firm's "excess cash" would "be available for the bonus pool to its officers at a vice president level and above."

The next month, when the banks balked at the deal, Romney decided to prove he wasn't bluffing. "As the bank group did not accept the proposal from Bain," the records show, "Bain's senior management has decided to go forth with the distribution of bonuses." (Bain's lawyers redacted the amount of the executive payouts, and the Romney campaign refused to comment on whether Romney himself received a bonus.)

Romney's decision to place executive compensation over fiscal responsibility immediately put Bain on the ropes. By that July, FDIC analysts reported, Bain had so little money left that "the company will actually run out of cash and default on the existing debt structure" as early as 1995. If that happened, Bain employees and American consumers would take the hit – an alternative that analysts considered "catastrophic."

But Romney didn't dole out all of Bain's cash as bonuses right away. According to a record from May 1992, he set aside some of the money to put one last squeeze on the firm's creditors. Romney now demanded that the banks and the government agree to a deal that was even less favorable than the last – to retire Bain's debts "at a price up to but not exceeding 30 cents on the dollar."

The FDIC considered finding a buyer to take over its loans to Bain, but analysts concluded that "Bain has no value as a going concern." And the government wasn't likely to get much out of Bain if it allowed the firm to go bankrupt: The loan agreement engineered by Romney had left the FDIC "virtually unsecured" on the $30.6 million it was owed by Bain. "Once bonuses are paid," the analysts warned, "all members of the bank group believe this company will dissolve during 1993."

About the only assets left would be Bain's office equipment. The records show FDIC analysts pathetically attempting to assess the value of such items, including an HP LaserJet printer, before concluding that most of the gear was so old that the government's "portion of any liquidation proceeds would be negligible."

H
ow had Romney scored such a favorable deal at the FDIC's expense? It didn't hurt that he had close ties to the agency – the kind of "crony capitalism" he now decries. A month before he closed the 1991 loan agreement, Romney promoted a former FDIC bank examiner to become a senior executive at Bain. He also had pull at the top: FDIC chairman Bill Seidman, who had served as finance chair for Romney's father when he ran for president in 1968.

The federal documents also reveal that, contrary to Romney's claim that he returned full time to Bain Capital in 1992, he remained involved in bailout negotiations to the very end. In a letter dated March 23rd, 1993, Romney reassured creditors that his latest scheme would return Bain & Company to "long-term financial stability." That same month, Romney once again threatened to "pay out maximum bonus distributions" to top executives unless much of Bain's debt was erased.

In the end, the government surrendered. At the time, The Boston Globe cited bankers dismissing the bailout as "relatively routine" – but the federal documents reveal it was anything but. The FDIC agreed to accept nearly $5 million in cash to retire $15 million in Bain's debt – an immediate government bailout of $10 million. All told, the FDIC estimated it would recoup just $14 million of the $30 million that Romney's firm owed the government.

It was a raw deal – but Romney's threat to loot his own firm had left the government with no other choice. If the FDIC had pushed Bain into bankruptcy, the records reveal, the agency would have recouped just $3.56 million from the firm.

The Romney campaign refused to respond to questions for this article; a spokeswoman said only that "Mitt Romney turned around Bain & Company by getting all parties to come to the table and make difficult decisions." But while taxpayers did not finance the bailout, the debt forgiven by the government was booked as a loss to the FDIC – and then recouped through higher insurance premiums from banks. And banks, of course, are notorious for finding ways to pass their costs along to customers, usually in the form of higher fees. Thanks to the nature of the market, in other words, the bailout negotiated by Romney ultimately wound up being paid by the American people.

Even as consumers took a loss, however, a small group of investors wound up getting a good deal in the bailout. Bain Capital – the very firm that had triggered the crisis in the first place – walked away with $4 million. That was the fee it charged Bain & Company for loaning the consulting firm the services of its chief executive – one Willard Mitt Romney.

This story is from the September 13, 2012 issue of Rolling Stone.

Related
• Mitt Romney's Federal Bailout: The Documents
• Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital
• Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney
• How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich
 

Ender

Inactive
If it doesn't make any difference, then stay home and stop trying so hard to convince everyone else not to vote. Me thinks you don't quite believe your own bullshit. :lol:

NOT
None of the Paulbots have any idea what to do now that their messiah has lost. I fully expect to see some of them buying a compound and calling it Heavens Gate, and reading about them in the news someday. You have to admit, the irrational attacks on anyone who disagrees with Paul in the slightest fits the cult profile to a T.




We all just feel sorry for all the disappointed Paulites. Their whole world circled aroung Ron Paul. All of your posts are calling people dumb stupid and ignorant. No rational thought, just hatred like someone possessed.I hope you find peace once Ron Paul fades from the scene.

He was a small, now bitter, man compared to his excellent and big ideas. He just wasn't up to the task. He didn't have the leadership ability to accomplish them, nor it appears, the character, now that he is retiring. I hope his son does better.

Better to be thought an ass, Terry, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

The irrational RP supporter attacks, on this forum, have always been started by YOU.
The name calling and baiting has always been started by YOU.

It is obvious that anyone who says that RP "was a small, now bitter, man compared to his excellent and big ideas. He just wasn't up to the task. He didn't have the leadership ability to accomplish them, nor it appears, the character, now that he is retiring." has got their own ego problem.

No RP supporter worships Ron Paul. They love liberty and are grateful to be woken out of The Matrix.

To put down a man who has devoted the majority of his life to helping others through service, and who has awakened millions of people to the cause of liberty and what freedom truly is, only shows a person of such a vile and small character themselves, as to generate nothing but disgust.

And BTW- Ragnarok is 1000 times the person you will ever be.

ETA: Make that 1,000,000.
 

skoaldiak

WWG1WGA
Agreed Ender

Romney said the first thing he would do if elected would be to repeal Obamacare. Will he come up with something else? Probably. Will we like it? Probably not. Will it still be better than Obamacare? Probably.

Have you watched the video that vicki just reposted from ranger?
 

Gercarson

Veteran Member
It's not going to make ANY difference how you vote or who you vote for, it is decided - Barack Hussein Abdullah Obama is going to remain as ruler of the United States of America - just to complete the "fundamental transformation". So . . . everyone, stop being so testy.
 

TerryK

TB Fanatic
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

.

So Cub, are you advocating violent revolution against the government of the United States?
 

The Freeholder

Inactive
illusion.jpg

You either get it, or you don't.
 

Ragnarok

On and On, South of Heaven
If it doesn't make any difference, then stay home and stop trying so hard to convince everyone else not to vote. Me thinks you don't quite believe your own bullshit. :lol:

Really?

Is that what youthinks?

Well, I'll tell you, I'm tired of trying to be civil about this whole thing.

You want to know the truth?

If you do vote you have no right to complain. It's not the other way around.

*IF* you decide to be a willfully ignorant plebe, it is YOUR fault. YOU are directly responsible for the demise of this country by advancing their agenda of globalism, bigger government, shock doctrine, totalitariansim.

YOU refuse to take off the blinders.

YOU continue to vote for evil just as long as it is your evil in office.

"A vote for the third party is a vote for Obama"

Talking to you, Momof23goats, et al.

Bullshit!!!

That is the exact line of thinking that garauntees that the system never changes.

You keep selling your lies.

The reality is that it is you who is believing in bullshit. You think your vote makes a difference? Laughable.

You do realize that there were several eyewitness accounts that put Mitt Romney at the last Bilderberg conference, right?

The same Bilderbergs that Hillary and Obama were seen at...

Who are you voting for, really?

Obama or Romney, you are voting for the corporate agenda. Period.

And those that advance the tripe, "Oh... I vote because so many patriots died to give me a vote".

BULLSHIT!!!

That may have been true of the patriots that fought in past generations. But, our Commander's in Chiefs are puppets og the corporate agenda. By extension our military no longer fights for freedom, they fight for the globalist agenda. Period.

You continue to believe the lies.

I refuse to.

 

Flashyzipp

Veteran Member
I can't stand either candidate! However, I WILL vote! Women haven't had the right to vote for all that long if you think about it. I will vote for Romney because I am terrified of where Obama is attempting to take our country. I am also afraid because most of my friends have indicated they are so disgusted they will not be voting either. In my opinion, Obama will win because of this . . . wake up America!
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
No, I don't usually follow posts from those who spend a lot of time in woo woo land.


Well rabbit, then you don't need to spend anymore time on this thread or ones like it, do you? I'm going to ban you from anti-Romney threads moving forward every time I see you post on one. Think I'm kidding? Watch me. And Terry, I now know for certain that you're a troll or a paid political shill. You're off of anti-Romney threads too.
 

TerryK

TB Fanatic
Better to be thought an ass, Terry, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I would say that that statement applies to you quite frequently :lol:

The irrational RP supporter attacks, on this forum, have always been started by YOU.
The name calling and baiting has always been started by YOU.



It is obvious that anyone who says that RP "was a small, now bitter, man compared to his excellent and big ideas. He just wasn't up to the task. He didn't have the leadership ability to accomplish them, nor it appears, the character, now that he is retiring." has got their own ego problem.
Exactly how does that statement have anything to do with ego? Your criticism of me for saying it reveals more about your self than anyone else. Ron Paul is small withered up, old man, whose time has come and gone. If he would have been a good leader he would have accomplished something be now. What major legislation has he accomplished? What political alliances has he formed? About all he has done is attract a following of political extremists whose fanaticism has driven most of the American public away from his sometimes good ideas. He should have stuck to writing books, where he might have influenced more people.
His son has possibilities and promise and has already risen further than his father. Ron Paul is dust in the wind.


No RP supporter worships Ron Paul. They love liberty and are grateful to be woken out of The Matrix.
Do you realize just how 'worshipping' that last sentence sounds? You do worship Ron Paul. Thats why all the Paulites are stewing in their own juices, angry, and go so far out their way to attack anyone who criticizes their "god". It isn't ideas you are sold on, it is a man, and that is dangerous and leads to psychosis.
You are in a movement that revolves around a man, not an idea. You can deny it if you want, but where are the other "leaders" in your movement? All I see is a bunch of sad people who cannot get anywhere by promoting their own ideas without attacking others.
Ron Paul people spend all their time attacking others and calling them names and then wonder why people don't like them.
Their answer to Romney is not to tell everyone how Ron Paul has a better idea. It is to attack Romney and his supporters by calling them names.
Again, after that, they wonder why people don't like them.
Ron Paul doesn't usually sink to calling people names. He has his supporters do it instead. :lol:




To put down a man who has devoted the majority of his life to helping others through service, and who has awakened millions of people to the cause of liberty and what freedom truly is, only shows a person of such a vile and small character themselves, as to generate nothing but disgust.
Yeah, an exactly how has he devoted his life to helping others. By spending it in a Congress that you continually sneer at? What major legislation has he passed or gotten repealed that made a big difference to everyone? Are people more free today because of him? What 'leaders' has he mentored to help carry on his legacy?
Ron Paul is about Ron Paul. He barely cares for his own son. He was a little man with some big ideas. (Gee where have we seen that before? :lol: )




And BTW- Ragnarok is 1000 times the person you will ever be.
ETA: Make that 1,000,000.

Isn't that kind of like saying nya nya nya, nya nya ?

Face it Ender, anytime someone attacks Ron Paul's effectiveness as a leader, whenever they disaggree with even a remote speck of his policies, the Ron Paul supporters attack that person, as a person. They don't argue ideas, they attack people. You should know that people get sick of being attacked because of their ideas, and pretty soon they attack back. Ron Paul at least promoted his ideas. Ron Paul supporters don't promote, or argue ideas, they think they help the movement by attacking the ones they hope would join the movement. The majority of Ron Paul's angry and hostile supporters are the reason the movement is self limiting. You should probably go home and mourn your loss and try to figure out WHY you lost.
By the way, where were you in Tampa. I was looking for you :)

 

Shacknasty Shagrat

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Really?

Is that what youthinks?

Well, I'll tell you, I'm tired of trying to be civil about this whole thing.

You want to know the truth?

If you do vote you have no right to complain. It's not the other way around.
..........
Interesting reversal, Rr.
The bald assertions, ie 'If I vote for someone, then I have a right to complain', may lead to other, equally energetic threads and posts.
I'll try it in discussions and see how it works.
SS
 

Hfcomms

EN66iq
So Cub, are you advocating violent revolution against the government of the United States?


So quoting our declaration of independence which is one of the founding documents this country is based on is now verboten?? Interesting how now holding to and quoting our constitution and the supporting documents is now considered subversive.

Terry....your a real card.
 

Laurane

Canadian Loonie
But on the anti-Romney threads don't you need some kind of opposition or will you ban anyone who wants to defend their candidate or mention any other?

So anti-Romney threads are really just for the Anti-Romneys to expound and the Anti-Anti-Romneys (you know where that name comes from) must start their own Anti-Anti-Romney threads.....but then do the Anti-Romneys get to reply on that thread? Too confusing .......
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
You're missing the point. There are a lot of pro-Romney (spits) posts by various members. As always (and since you've been here since Day One you already know this), it's about the way they treat their opposing members via their replies. Scan through multiple replies by them and you'll clearly see what I'm talking about. That is, if you want to be intellectually honest about the issue...
 

Warthog

Black Out
I don't like Romney either, he reminds me of a cheap car salesman, but once again we must vote out the worst of the two evils. Please hold your nose Rag and vote for the cheap car salesman.
 

Ender

Inactive
But on the anti-Romney threads don't you need some kind of opposition or will you ban anyone who wants to defend their candidate or mention any other?

So anti-Romney threads are really just for the Anti-Romneys to expound and the Anti-Anti-Romneys (you know where that name comes from) must start their own Anti-Anti-Romney threads.....but then do the Anti-Romneys get to reply on that thread? Too confusing .......

If everyone could have a civil discourse while disagreeing, there would be no problem. Ron Paul supporters have been called names from Day One and if they reply, everything goes to Hades.

BTW- I wish Romney was a good man; I 'd like to see a solid Mormon in the WH- one who could bring the love of the Constitution back to Americans. Most Mormons deeply believe in the Constitution PLUS it could wipe away some of the deep prejudices about Mormonisn that is still prevalent in the country. (Just as JFK helped get rid of much of the anti-Catholic fervor.) After seeing what Romney and his legals did to Ron Paul over duly elected delegates/last minute rule changes, etc. I have no doubts that Romney is from the same team as Obama.
 

Ranger

Membership Revoked
Years ago I posted a quote by Alan Watt of http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com.
He stated: " we don't so much vote FOR someone; we vote to
remove the incumbent".

Since Nov 22, 1963 the US Presidency has been largely controlled
by the Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute of
International Affairs. As the late Mae Brussel (Carmel Ca) used to
say: "the US government as we knew it (at the time) was
overthrown". Personally, I think patterns of foreign policy,
economic policy, free trade agreements, war policy, environmental
policy etc......indicate that contrary to what Clint Eastwood says
about us owning this country, someone else is "framing the
debate".

The illusion we call the two party system which is most
certainly opposite wings of the same bird of prey can really
only be seen by the disillusioned who as others have said
take the "red pill". It forces one to not accept things so readily
as presented by the indispensable arm of government, the 4th
estate; the media. Instead one learns to recognize patterns,
follow stories and policies and indicators that point to agenda.

It's been my experience in life that the "awakening" process
does generally proceed in earnest once someone becomes
disillusioned with the system by loss of job, health or some
hardship. At least that's in part what happened to me.

The electorate was hoodwinked this cycle like many previous
cycles. We had one chance to "re-frame" the debate but have
now apparently lost it.

Remember Eisenhower's Farewell Speech warning about the
Military Industrial Complex? Well, Kennedy took that warning
to heart and tried to protect our nation from these interests.

Ranger
 

gdpetti

Inactive
Has this video from Jon Stewart's Daily Show been posted here yet? It's good, though it doesn't mention the S&L 'bailout' during the late 80s days when all the insiders were enjoying the govt's teat of plenty. This is typical of 2nd or later generations. They just don't have the mojo their parents had. He was brought in (not sure why) but after repeated failures to 'save' Bain(the parent corporation before the BCapital days), he threatened all bond holders, including that govt agency, that he and the board would crash the company's finances and leave them nothing to collect on. That worked, the debt holders took their losses and moved on.

That aside, this clip, narrated by Mr. Nimoy on Jon Stewart's Daily Show is very entertaining. It just hasn't become aware of Mr Mitt's Bain days, before his 'startup' days with the subsidiary. I would think when his staff does, they will add it to the mix.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...sh-2016---mitt-romney--a-human-who-built-that
 

Vicki

Girls With Guns Member
No, I don't usually follow posts from those who spend a lot of time in woo woo land.

I wasn't picking on you Rabbit. I was trying to get some facts discussed. I don't post woo on the main and try to stick to the facts. I rarely post my opinions on the main and bring news when I can from decent sources. Sorry you feel the credibility of someone is compromised when they have a multitude of interests.
 

Donner9x

Thread Killer :-)
There is not one difference between Romney and Obama

Whether you vote for him, vote for Obama, vote for Rand Paul, or don't vote at all...

That statement is one of the most ignorant to be uttered during the current political season.

It shows a complete ignorance of the candidates, most especially a total ignorance of Barack Obama and what he has been up to, what he has already "accomplished" and his background. People who truly believe this (unless they're using it as a political tactic - which in many instances I believe is the case) need to go back and do a lot of research - learn about Obama and what he truly believes and what he's done and continues to do to this country.

Don't vote for Romney. Don't vote at all. Vote for a third party candidate if you choose.

But please, don't insult the intelligence of the vast majority of thinking, observing, politically involved and aware people, and don't prove your own ignorance and make a complete fool of yourself by repeating this worn and tired mantra.
 
Top