Third Party & Independents Archives

More Hidden Bain Documents Released

Hundreds of pages of undisclosed Bain documents were released by online publisher, Gawker, and to the dismay of Democrats, these files have confirmed everything Mitt Romney has been truthful about his time at Bain Capital. For months, the liberal media and Democrats have scrutinized Romney relentlessly for his work at the investment firm.

From information in the newly released documents, a reporter at Gawker, John Cook, stated, "Romney has long claimed, despite evidence to the contrary, that he retired from Bain Capital in 1999." Cook adds, "The Bain documents we obtained indicate that his involvement with the company extended years past that date." The publication then backtracked with a correction saying, "The documents relate to investments made after Romney's tenure at Bain, not the time that he was there as previously noted." Wow! Dems just blew this can wide open! Romney was telling the truth.

There's no telling whether Romney's career at Bain will haunt him all the way to the election, however rather than disclosing more information to tarnish Romney's reputation, the release of the Bain files have actually done the opposite.

The fact that liberals want to hate Mitt Romney for establishing an incredibly successful business career, and had anyone been in a position to make those investments, it's hypocritical to say you wouldn't. This phase in America where wealth and success are evil is going to kill this nation. This nation wouldn't survive without wealth, and on this current path we soon shall see. For all of the people waiting for Obama to make their lives better are in for a rude awakening and will be waiting a very long time.

Posted by MichaelMears at August 23, 2012 1:13 PM
Comments
Comment #351372

Ask and ye shall recieve, but you have to be careful what you ask for because it just might get up and bite you in the A—!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at August 23, 2012 5:19 PM
Comment #351373

“…America where wealth and success are evil is going to kill this nation.”

What are you talking about? Nobody is attacking wealth and success. It is the skewed distribution of wealth that is an issue. Concentration of the nation’s wealth in a very small minority has long been recognized as a danger to our democracy.

“As I’ve often said … this [increasing income inequality] is not the type of thing which a democratic society—a capitalist democratic society—can really accept without addressing.”

- Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Board Chairman

Posted by: Rich at August 23, 2012 5:30 PM
Comment #351375

Can we expect the leftist socialists SD, AD, j2t2, Adrienne, phx8, and the rest to apologize for their parroting of the “attack Romney over Bain Obama talking points”, or will they simply find more ways to explain what Obama was really trying to say? Inquiring minds want to know. I expect their comback to be, “well, it wasn’t Obama who said those things, it was the Dem pacs which Obama has no control over”, or maybe “the latest documents are forgeries and are planted evidence by the right” for the purpose of making Obama look like an idiot.

Let it be known; I said two weeks ago, this is nothing more than a talking point to change the topic of discussion. I was right and now Obama DOES look like an idiot.

Posted by: Frank at August 23, 2012 5:34 PM
Comment #351376

Let the spin begin:

“What are you talking about? Nobody is attacking wealth and success. It is the skewed distribution of wealth that is an issue. Concentration of the nation’s wealth in a very small minority has long been recognized as a danger to our democracy.” Rich

It has always been about attacking wealth and success; this is Obama’s message. I love it; the left absolutly denies Obama is trying to redistribute the wealth of America, and Rich’s comments about skewed distribution of wealth is proof. Tell me rich, how do you propose we fix the skewed ditribution of wealth; take from those who have and give to those who have not?

By the way, Greenspan was a fool. I had no use for him and before you say he was appointed or supported by a republican; I will say, I disagreed with the Republican Party many times.

Posted by: Billinflorida at August 23, 2012 5:43 PM
Comment #351384

OK, Billinflorida, I concede to your wisdom. Its the way it should be. If a few are clever enough to get all the marbles, all the more power to them. The fact that concentrated wealth equates to political power is of minor concern. Liberals and even conservative economists, like Greenspan, concerned with this trend are fools. If we turn into a banana republic, so what. If that’s the outcome of our capitalist democratic republic, so be it. We should rejoice not be dismayed by a system that results in a majority of the nation’s wealth in the hands of a tiny minority.

After all, there is no way to alter that trend short of simply taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor. The post WWII period of a closing in the wealth gap was an aberration. The growth of the middle class was a hoax engineered by FDR liberals cleverly stealing from the rich and transferring that wealth to the middle class.

So, I must agree. It is the vision of the forefathers for our great nation. A nation owned and managed by a small minority. It is something to take pride in.

Posted by: Rich at August 23, 2012 7:06 PM
Comment #351386

Rich:

First, are you including the concentrated wealth of unions as related to political power?

Secondly; if we are moving toward a “banana republic”, it is because of recent policies. And the recent policies cannot be capitalistic economic success, because we have had that ever since the origin of the nation.

Thirdly; FDR had nothing to do with the growth of the middle class, his socialist policies were failures; it was WWII that created work and wealth, which continued for many years after WWII as we were also rebuilding Europe and Asia.

“A nation owned and managed by a small minority. It is something to take pride in.”

USSR is an example of a nation owned by a minority, wuith the sociaist promise of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. How did that work out?

I’m sorry you have no pride in America, but neither did Michelle Obama until her husband was elected. I guess she again won’t have any pride after her husband is sent back to Chicago.

Perhaps, if you were to get what someone else worked for, you would have pride.

Posted by: Billinflorida at August 23, 2012 7:30 PM
Comment #351388

Billinflorida,

You are a terrifically insulting person, Bill. Congratulations on your success.

I see absolutely no reason to continue to debate with a person that fails to acknowledge a problem that even the most conservative economists agree is a significant issue demanding attention.

“There’s none so blind as they that won’t see.”

Posted by: Rich at August 23, 2012 8:03 PM
Comment #351389

So, where do we stand re Romney and Bain Capital? Does this mean we mustn’t blame Romney for the nightmares unleashed upon American companies by Bain? The debt loaded upon companies by Bain in order to pay Romney & his investors a big one-time ‘dividend’? The layoffs, offshoring, and outsourcing?

At one point, I thought Romney was campaigning as if Bain Capital were to his credit. Now, we’re not supposed to blame him for that horrowshow from the 90’s.

Help me out, Michael Mears. Are we supposed to credit or blame Romney? He changes positions so fast, it’s hard to follow, and of course he won’t release tax returns.

He still hasn’t released his UBIT form for his 2010 taxes- the form showing his foreign investments in Switzerland and the Caymand Islands and Bermuda. Maybe that would resolve this whole issue with the awful things foisted upon the American people by Bain, and whether Romney deserved the blame.

Say, Michael Mears, do you think it should be legal in the first place for wealthy Americans to avoid paying US taxes by placing money in foreign accounts? And if so, do you think it is appropriate for such people to run for President? Because after all, they have been engaging in efforts to avoid paying for the military.

Personally, I think people like that are pieces of crap, and America would be better off without them.

Posted by: phx8 at August 23, 2012 9:05 PM
Comment #351391

I invite readers to go directly to the site and find out for themselves how exaggerated Michael Mears’ claims are.

They did say earlier that these documents demonstrated that Romney was still involved with his company. They backtracked on the notion that the documents prove that involvement, but they do not prove that other documents indicating that Mitt Romney maintained control past 1999 are false, nor do they indicate that there’s nothing going on that people might be interested to know.

One article they’ve got up so far has Bain Capital lending money to The National Enquirer, Casinos and gambling interests, Cigarette distributors, and worst of all, Hollywood Music and Movie producers, including those who back Britney Spears and and Limp Bizkit.

When he’s not investing in such marvellously Mormon enterprises, he’s much, much more deeply invested in the derivatives market, including a fund that he short sold- meaning he bet on somebody in the economy to lose, in 2009.

The relevant section Michael is crowing about here doesn’t look too good for Romney, if you drill down into the details. His retirement deal was, in part, to get stakes in many of Bain’s deals, including in funds created as recently as 2008.

But it gets better. The evidence shows, basically, these funds locating themselves in the Cayman Islands, with the proviso that they don’t engage in business here. But the documents tell us they’re doing just that.

Is there an one-shot kill here for Romney’s campaign here? I don’t know. But anybody saying these disclosures are innocuous is just engaging in wishful thinking, or got their information from the wrong sources.

It’s funny that in making his claim, Michael didn’t link to any sources. I had to look this stuff up myself. While you can count on many of your fellow Republicans to play the mushroom here, The Democrats are a different matter.

You should have investigated this more deeply before you started gloating.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2012 9:31 PM
Comment #351394

I’d like to make a comment here: A lot of the damage this might do, will be Romney’s fault, and not merely because these reflect business policies and priorities he set when he was in charge of Bain.

No, it’s going to come becaue Romney was naive enough to believe that he of all people could get away with hiding his financial past.

The Problem with Romney is that he’s running for President after 2008. People have little benefit of the doubt for those who go around buying up companies in leveraged sales, and chop-shopping them for profit. People are not all that in love with folks who make their main business more or less leading investors down the garden path, or who make their money with risky, exotic financial schemes.

Whether Republicans like to admit it or not, something fundamental has changed in people’s attitudes towards Wall Street. So, their first question to Romney, once he brought up his business experience, was how exactly did you make your money? Were you one of the people laying off folks left and right during the last decade, even before the economic crisis, who helped make the last decade one of the worst in recent history for job creation? Were you doing your best to dodge your obligations on taxes?

People want to know, and Romney thought he could satisfy them just by releasing a couple, citing the last Republican to run for office as precedent. Problem: McCain had military and long Senate experience to occupy most of his time during the last few years. He took his lumps for the Lincoln Savings and Loan debacle, but that was ancient history.

Romney’s recent history has him playing the moderate Republican in a blue state, one of the bluest, after quite a bit of time as a financier, so this pretty much represents his resume, his justification for saying he has executive experience and business skills.

So, people want to know. They want to know whether he’s all there, or whether this image he’s trying to project is just a stuffed suit.

But he doesn’t want to answer that, and if look at some of the dirt that’s already been dug up in the gawker files, it’s pretty clear why: This isn’t what people want in terms of business experience. This is the sort of BS people despise in today’s business world, the chronic rejection of any obligation beyond themselves, the use of capital investment as a way to turn a small sum of money into a huge amount at the expense of companies and jobs.

Romney’s business was putting other people out of business, out of work, at the very least endangering the companies and the jobs in order to turn profits less based on the company’s ability to produce, and more on that company’s ability to endebt itself to their profit.

That is what he doesn’t want people to realize. That he less runs companies, than runs them into the ground.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2012 9:51 PM
Comment #351398

Here’s a link of my own. It turns out GAWKER is based in the Caymans as well…
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314853/gawker-and-bain-and-caymans-kevin-d-williamson

Posted by: BZA at August 23, 2012 11:24 PM
Comment #351399

Stephen, why don’t you go and find something nice to write about for Obama and how he made his millions. You can also include Reid and how he made millions on his Senate salary. One question Stephen, Was any of what Bain did illegal? Most companies that go into troubled organizations do exactly what Bain has done either make them profitable or shut them down. Companies like Bain are not doing what they do to lose money.

Posted by: KAP at August 23, 2012 11:24 PM
Comment #351400

KAP, you miss the point. It’s not about legality; it’s about feelings and fairness. It’s about what Stephen considers to be fair. Stephen is a socialist and what’s fair to him is to steal from those who have worked and give to those who won’t. What’s legal to Stephen is not what the law requires, but what Stephen requires. It doesn’t matter how many rich liberals have money in overseas accounts; to Stephen it matters where conservatives put their money. It doesn’t matter that Bain Capital invested millions of dollars in failing companies, of which many were successful, but to Stephen what matters is that some rich capitalist or investors made a profit and that was evil. It doesn’t matter where Obama, Reid, Pelosi, John Kerry or any other millionaire democrap got their money; what matters is where the conservative Republicans got theirs; because Stephen has a feeling that it’s not fair. Fairness and feelings; like a bunch of women.

Posted by: Frank at August 23, 2012 11:44 PM
Comment #351403

There is an article I came accross when googeling where Obama got his money, www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp. The article ask some good questions about how he financed his life.

Posted by: KAP at August 23, 2012 11:56 PM
Comment #351404

And we all know how Republicans feel about women…

Posted by: phx8 at August 23, 2012 11:57 PM
Comment #351405

This another way of swaying the talking points away from Obama, phx8.How do republicans feel about women?

Posted by: KAP at August 24, 2012 12:16 AM
Comment #351406

KAP,
See the conclusion of Frank’s previous comment. Perhaps Frank intended to compliment Stephen, but I doubt it. Sounds like he meant to insult Stephen by comparing him with women, who apparently are overly concerned with “fairness and feelings.”

You know, KAP, most people in business would be able to say something definite and concrete about their achievements. They would be able to point to something, and say:

‘I did this.’

They would point to a service or a product, something positive, and that contribution would immediately be obvious to everyone.

Romney can’t do that. He can’t make the case for much of anything, other than he made a lot of money… doing something… and it’s nobody’s business how much money, thank you very much.

That’s just not a compelling argument for why a person should be elected President.

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2012 12:50 AM
Comment #351411

And Obama can phx8, at least Romney did run a business, even though people like you say his business was evil, and ran a state. Still the question, How do republicans feel about women?

Posted by: KAP at August 24, 2012 9:24 AM
Comment #351412

“KAP,
See the conclusion of Frank’s previous comment. Perhaps Frank intended to compliment Stephen, but I doubt it. Sounds like he meant to insult Stephen by comparing him with women, who apparently are overly concerned with “fairness and feelings.”

Why does the left always jump to the conclusion that a comment by a conservative is an insult? The comments I made about Stephen and all liberals are true; it’s not an insult, it’s a fact. Rather than try to present an alternative argument, the left immediately jumps to the emotional conclusion that it was an insult. Phx8, you have unwittingly proved my point. Liberals do not exercise logic; their responses are always emotional.

Perhaps you should do a little study on the makeup of men and women. Women have a tendency to be more emotional than men, and men have a tendency to be more analytical or logical than women:

“Women, Men, Logic, and Emotion”

Mike Treder
Ethical Technology
Posted: Oct 22, 2009

“A study by researchers from the Université de Montréal Centre de recherche en neuropsychologie et cognition (CERNEC), published in the journal Neuropsychologia, says that women are better than men at picking up emotional clues in people’s facial expressions.

The team, headed by Olivier Collignon, set out to examine the long-held belief that women generally do a better job than men in understanding what a person’s expressions, statements and body language says about how they feel.

Collignon, who also works as a researcher at the Université catholique de Louvain’s Institute of Neuroscience in Belgium, says “the aim of such a study isn’t to prove the superiority of men or women… These gender studies are necessary for researchers to better understand mental diseases which have a strong gender component. That means they affect men and women differently. Autism is a good example, because it affects more men than women and one of its features is the difficulty in recognizing emotions.”

Hence, the conclusion of my comment is that Stephen is like a woman; basing his comments on emotion and not logic. This can be applied to most liberals. The proof: whenever discussing politics, the liberal will ALWAYS revert to what is fair or unfair. When was the last time a conservative said it “wasn’t fair” for some people to make more money than others? I can use the term “Girleymen” if it would make you “feel” better.

Posted by: Frank at August 24, 2012 9:47 AM
Comment #351413
First, are you including the concentrated wealth of unions as related to political power?

Apples and Oranges Bill, misdirection on your part to avoid the issue.

Secondly; if we are moving toward a “banana republic”, it is because of recent policies. And the recent policies cannot be capitalistic economic success, because we have had that ever since the origin of the nation.

We have been moving towards a banana republic since Reagan and the trickle on theory of economics became the norm Billinfla, where have you been hiding? Income inequality of such magnitude is a sign that we are heading in the wrong direction. Deny as you will it only makes your opinion suspect and you look foolish.

Thirdly; FDR had nothing to do with the growth of the middle class, his socialist policies were failures; it was WWII that created work and wealth, which continued for many years after WWII as we were also rebuilding Europe and Asia.

Who do you think got us into and through WWII? FDR’s leadership put us in the driver seat once the war was over and the GI bill amongst other things paved the way for those returning home to build this country as well as contribute to the workings of the Marshall plan. Your inability to recognize the leadership and greatness of FDR once again shows you shallow ideological bias.


“A nation owned and managed by a small minority. It is something to take pride in.”
USSR is an example of a nation owned by a minority, wuith the sociaist promise of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. How did that work out?

Exactly you dimwit. Rich is obviously being sarcastic with this comment, perhaps to nuanced for you. The fact is when political power and money are in the hands of the few, as conservatives would have it, the results is communism or fascism or perhaps in this case Rommunism. Yet conservatives continue to lead us down this path spouting nonsense such as you have.

I’m sorry you have no pride in America, but neither did Michelle Obama until her husband was elected. I guess she again won’t have any pride after her husband is sent back to Chicago.

And I’m sorry you cannot understand what Rich was actually saying.

BTW don’t count your chickens just yet Bill. The American people may fool you.

Perhaps, if you were to get what someone else worked for, you would have pride.

And perhaps if you believed Capitalism was a means of producing goods and services while creating profit instead of buying and trashing the work of others for personal gain you would realize how foolish your comment sounds.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 24, 2012 9:58 AM
Comment #351414

Here is the link to the previous comment:

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/treder20091022/

Regarding phx8’s comments on the Republican “War of Women”; again a lie orchestrated by the left to cause division and in this case change the subject from Obama’s failed presidency. Perhaps phx8 could also do a little study on the history of the Republicans support of women’s rights:

“When the Obama reelection staff began developing its general strategy for duping a majority of the electorate into once again supporting the President, they knew they needed to drive a lot of disenchanted female voters back into the Democrat herd. Thus, they concocted the fictional Republican “war on women.” And, knowing that our government education system has long since given up teaching history, Obama’s minions had little fear that the public would realize that the GOP’s support of women’s rights goes back to its founding in 1854. Nor were the President’s men worried that Democrat front groups like the National Organization for Women, much less the “news” media, would remind female voters that their very ability to cast a ballot was won for them by the Republicans over the vehement objections of the Democrats.”

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/30/republicans-and-womens-rights

Democrats love to teach revisionist history; but in this day of instant access to documentation, it’s very easy to find the truth.

It was the Republican Party who fought for the rights of blacks to be free of slavery, it was the Republicans who voted to pass civil rights for blacks, because LBJ did not have the support of the Democratic Party; but to listen to the Democrats, this never happened. It’s called revisionist history.

Posted by: Frank at August 24, 2012 10:06 AM
Comment #351417

Frank,
The War on Women, the sustained legislative assault against women’s health issues, is very real. At the state level, over 900 bills attacking women’t health issues have been introduced by Republicans, dwarfing any previous period. At the federal level, 54 bills have been brought up, most co-sponsosred and supported by Ryan. Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the Lily Ledbetter fair pay act, as well as other related legislation.

And then there was the Issa hearing… the degrading comments by the leading voice of conservatism, Rush Limbaugh, referring to a young woman testifying about women’s health issues as a “slut” and worse, documented 53 times over three days.

As for representation within the GOP: there are a grand total of five female Senators, and two of them are retiring. In the House, 24 out of 240 Representatives are women.

Oh, and Frank, did you see the poll about black support for Obama v Romney. It was 94% for Obama, 0% for Romney.

As a Romney supporter, you must represent the margin of error.

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2012 11:53 AM
Comment #351418

Being oppossed to special treatment and expecting people pay for their own health issues, hardly qualifies as “waging a war” on anybody.

Posted by: kctim at August 24, 2012 12:22 PM
Comment #351419

kctim,
When Republicans push legislation that forces a woman who has been raped to continue the pregnancy; or when the GOP pushes legislation that forces a woman to continue a ectopic pregnancy that will kill the woman, what do you call that? It seems like a pretty good definition of hell on earth for such women. But if you have a better term than “War on Women” or a “sustained legislative assault on women’s health care issues,” just let me know.

I can’t imagine a more invasive government maneuver than when the government puts itself between a woman and her doctor over her personal health issues.

The personhood amendments- legislation supported by Ryan and the GOP in multiple bills at both the state and federal levels- would outlaw The Pill and some other forms of birth control. Are you good with that? And do you have a better term?

Up for a constitutional amendment?

There are some other issues involving forced ultrasounds that I’m just not going to describe. Have at it.

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2012 12:35 PM
Comment #351421

KAP-
You don’t get it. It’s about Frank, and who Frank thinks is a socialist.

Seriously, you do realize you linked Snopes, the Urban Legend site, and whatever weird theory you were hoping to promote was proved false, ironically in part by the Tax Returns Obama did provide, but which Romney has not.

You talk about legality. Legality! There is plenty that is currently legal that people will nonetheless despise you for. When people hear about somebody taking a vulnerable company, doing a leveraged buy-out of it (that is, borrowing money to buy enough stock to take control), and then destroying the company through divestment, excessive generation of debt meant to fund big dividends, or layoffs meant to manipulate stock prices, when somebody leaves that company a smoking wreck, however legal it may be, people still think poorly of the people that do it.

What lawyers do is often eminently legal… and often despised nonetheless. What payday loan lenders do is often despised. But it’s legal. Debt Collectors? Legal, yes. Despised, yes. Mortgage servicers? Some of what they do is legal, and much of what they do, including many tricks to try and push people into foreclosure, is despicable in the eyes of the public.

There are plenty of ways to make money without acting like scumbags. If Romney had presidential ambitions, he might have chosen a less problematic way of making his money. People will only buy his claims that he was some kind of job creator if they don’t look too closely at his finances, and the businesses he ran. Leveraged buyouts are not about job creation, they’re about exploiting vulnerable firms to make money through ways most of us would not consider helpful, productive means.

BZA-
Here’s what I love about the way Republicans argue nowadays: they concede arguments like crazy, with what they think are surefire debate strategies.

When you say, Gawker, and internet gossip site is no better than Mitt Romney, what you’re saying in converse is, Mitt Romney is no better than an internet gossip site.

It changes none of the facts, and invalidates none of the information, whose truth values as actual Bain Documents is independent of who leaked it. Romney supporters flock to the argument because they’re used to using tu quoque arguments to paralyze dissent and outrage by alleging everybody’s doing it. Problem for them is, it’s an argument that attempts to bring critics down into the mud with their target, not an argument that actually exonerates somebody based on the facts.

Romney still has a ****ton of opaque, byzantine operations going on in the Cayman Islands, still earning him money off of his company’s activity and behavior.

Frank-
“Like a bunch of women?”

I suppose the manly thing to do, from your point of view, would be to submit to other people taking our money, cheating us, loan-sharking us, poisoning us with bad drugs, killing our jobs with risky financial schemes that pose systemic dangers.

The manly thing seems to be for us not to stand up for ourselves, or use our votes to encourage government to intervene in our interests. Masculinity is defined as passively and stoically taking the bull**** of the one percent in this country like men, not complaining that we’re being punished for their mistakes, while they make millions, even billions for being so stupid and foolish.

Take it like a man, or stand up for yourself like man. Hmm. I’ll stand up for myself like a man.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2012 12:55 PM
Comment #351422

Phx8, I would call it legislation with the life of a baby taken fully into account. I would also call it dishonest to attempt to label such belief as a hatred of women or as a war on women. Such silliness could easily declare that you and I are waging a war on babies.

“I can’t imagine a more invasive government maneuver than when the government puts itself between a woman and her doctor over her personal health issues.”

I can. It is when government forcefully makes another person agree with and support her health issues and procedures.

You take taxpayer money out of the equation and it’s no longer a wedge issue for the majority. Of course, that’s not really what the left wants now, is it.

Posted by: kctim at August 24, 2012 1:01 PM
Comment #351423

Stephen, What you did was in effect say that what Romney did was LEGAL. As far as his tax returns what he did was LEGAL. Until the IRS says diffderent you have NO CASE. His tax returns are none of your business or mine neither is Obama’s. As far as Bain what he did there was LEGAL. What Obama is doing in his term as president, I may think is despicable, as long as it is constitutional and LEGAL, the only thing I can do is help vote him out. You and YOUR PEOPLE are the ones going on a fishing expedition because you are trying to avoid Obama’s dismal record. So as I said, why don’t you find something nice to write about your parties choice Oama.

Posted by: KAP at August 24, 2012 1:25 PM
Comment #351425

kctim-
The Hyde Amendment. Full Stop. Federal funds don’t go to abortion. The Constitutional Amendment Romney, Akin, and Ryan have all supported? That would force a federal opinion on all states, and a government opinion on a woman and her doctor.

KAP-
Have you been paying attention at all?

Legal doesn’t mean it looks good, or people like it. Legal doesn’t mean honest. You keep on going back to legal, but that’s a lawyer’s answer. People don’t merely want a President who does things which are legal, they want a President who does MORE than the law requires to be a good person, and an honest and responsible citizen.

As for what Obama’s done? You know, the trick is, we’ve sold the hell out of what Obama’s actually done. Trouble is, the spin machine you take your marching orders from knows no shame in trying to twist the appearance of every success into a failure.

So, Obama’s done good, you’re just never going to admit it, because that would highlight the Republican’s failure to be constructive opponents all the more glaringly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2012 2:26 PM
Comment #351426

As for that whole legal thing? According to one professor, the management fees to carried interest tactic that the documents showed he use would not stand up to an IRS challenge.

I think I should make something clear to the apologists: when folks like Romney dodge their taxes, we’re the ones who end up paying for things in the long run. So, this isn’t something to celebrate. This is something you should stand up against.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2012 2:35 PM
Comment #351427

Stephen

ALL direct and indirect money. Every government dollar to pay a bill, adds a private dollar to perform an abortion.

If the pro-abortion crowd wants the support of a real majority, they need to quit demanding everybody be forced to contribute.

And please, don’t pretend that you care about federal opinion being forced on states. You know dang well that it doesn’t bother you one bit as long as it’s your opinion that is being forced onto them.

Posted by: kctim at August 24, 2012 2:38 PM
Comment #351428

“we’re the ones who end up paying for things in the long run”

Only because “your people” keep adding crap to pay for.

Posted by: kctim at August 24, 2012 2:42 PM
Comment #351429

Stephen, LEGAL is LEGAL no matter who does it. And yes I’ve been paying attention. As I stated I don’t like all of what Obama has done, but I have to put up with him. I didn’t like all of what Bush did either and I probably won’t like all of what Romney does if he gets elected. You don’t like what Romney did when he was at Bain, but that was his job to aquire companies that were in trouble, shore them up if it were fiscally possible or shut them down if it were not. I had alot of jobs I didn’t like doing but I did because that was my job as I am sure that you do things you don’t like but do them anyway. You think Obama has done good but you would think that because you get your marching orders from someone who knows no shame. See Stephen we both can play that ignorant game. FACT is you have your opinion I have mine.

Posted by: KAP at August 24, 2012 3:14 PM
Comment #351431

Small attacks on Romney again. Romney wrote a great article in the WSJ. Tomorrow I will write an article based on it. OUr liberal friends will talk small issues. They will want to attack little things. We will rise above that.

This article is interesting. The fact is that information leaked tears apart the liberal case. So the small guys go back to their ankle biting and weird ideas like the war on women. Well we will prevail against that too.

Obama’s Chihuahuas will not make much of difference with their barking an ankle biting. We can just keep walking looking at the big picture and let them talk about how Romney murders women, is a felon and steals money. We know that is not true and so do those who make the charges.

Posted by: C&J at August 24, 2012 4:15 PM
Comment #351432

“As a Romney supporter, you must represent the margin of error.”

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2012 11:53 AM

Phx8, next you’ll be using the “Uncle Tom” line because I am a black conservative. Why should I care what % of blacks vote for Democrats? I’ll tell you what, take away the government handouts to blacks and see who they vote for. Why do you think Democrats have created a class of people enslaved to Welfare?

“Romney still has a ****ton of opaque, byzantine operations going on in the Cayman Islands, still earning him money off of his company’s activity and behavior.”

SD, is there something illegal here, or are you having “feelings” again? “Feelings” of “Fairness”.

“Frank-
“Like a bunch of women?”

Let me put it this way Stephen, as one who is close to two and a half times your age, you are a (for lack of a better word and from my youth) “sissy”. You look like a sissy, you act like a sissy, and you talk like a sissy. You like to talk like one who is full of the experience of life and you have no experience. I would bet that most of the liberals hiding behind their laptop screens and spouting socialist words are nothing more than snotty nosed kids, with no life experience. Just mouth pieces for Obama and company. The reason we know so much about Stephen is because he has diarrhea of the mouth and tells everything he knows.

“Stephen, What you did was in effect say that what Romney did was LEGAL. As far as his tax returns what he did was LEGAL. Until the IRS says diffderent you have NO CASE. His tax returns are none of your business or mine neither is Obama’s. As far as Bain what he did there was LEGAL. What Obama is doing in his term as president, I may think is despicable, as long as it is constitutional and LEGAL, the only thing I can do is help vote him out. You and YOUR PEOPLE are the ones going on a fishing expedition because you are trying to avoid Obama’s dismal record. So as I said, why don’t you find something nice to write about your parties choice Oama.”

Posted by: KAP at August 24, 2012 1:25 PM

It doesn’t matter KAP, as I said before, Stephen is not concerned about facts or legality; with Stephen and all liberals, it’s about fairness and feelings.

Here is Stephen’s response to you:

“Legal doesn’t mean it looks good, or people like it. Legal doesn’t mean honest. You keep on going back to legal, but that’s a lawyer’s answer. People don’t merely want a President who does things which are legal, they want a President who does MORE than the law requires to be a good person, and an honest and responsible citizen.”

Legal doesn’t matter, its feelings and fairness. I hate to tell SD this, but the liberals are the only ones who care about this, most Americans don’t, and if they do, it will show in the election.

“As for that whole legal thing? According to one professor, the management fees to carried interest tactic that the documents showed he use would not stand up to an IRS challenge.

I think I should make something clear to the apologists: when folks like Romney dodge their taxes, we’re the ones who end up paying for things in the long run. So, this isn’t something to celebrate. This is something you should stand up against.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2012 2:35 PM

So what Stephen is saying is that we can expect the IRS to go after Romney, right Stephen???

Stephen’s earlier comment:

“When you say, Gawker, and internet gossip site is no better than Mitt Romney, what you’re saying in converse is, Mitt Romney is no better than an internet gossip site.”

Then Stephen gives us the findings of a “Professor” (an expert to impress us), who uses the Gawker site as proof for his conclusion:

“Gawker today posted some Bain documents today showing that Bain, like many other PE firms, had engaged in this practice of converting management fees into capital gain. Unlike carried interest, which is unseemly but perfectly legal, Bain’s management fee conversions are not legal. If challenged in court, Bain would lose. The Bain partners, in my opinion, misreported their income if they reported these converted fees as capital gain instead of ordinary income.”

So which is it Stephen Daugherty; is Gawker an internet gossip site, or is it a legitimate source for Professor Victor Fleischer?

Posted by: Frank at August 24, 2012 4:44 PM
Comment #351433

“As a Romney supporter, you must represent the margin of error.”

Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2012 11:53 AM

Phx8, next you’ll be using the “Uncle Tom” line because I am a black conservative. Why should I care what % of blacks vote for Democrats? I’ll tell you what, take away the government handouts to blacks and see who they vote for. Why do you think Democrats have created a class of people enslaved to Welfare?

“Romney still has a ****ton of opaque, byzantine operations going on in the Cayman Islands, still earning him money off of his company’s activity and behavior.”

SD, is there something illegal here, or are you having “feelings” again? “Feelings” of “Fairness”.

“Frank-
“Like a bunch of women?”

Let me put it this way Stephen, as one who is close to two and a half times your age, you are a (for lack of a better word and from my youth) “sissy”. You look like a sissy, you act like a sissy, and you talk like a sissy. You like to talk like one who is full of the experience of life and you have no experience. I would bet that most of the liberals hiding behind their laptop screens and spouting socialist words are nothing more than snotty nosed kids, with no life experience. Just mouth pieces for Obama and company. The reason we know so much about Stephen is because he has diarrhea of the mouth and tells everything he knows.

“Stephen, What you did was in effect say that what Romney did was LEGAL. As far as his tax returns what he did was LEGAL. Until the IRS says diffderent you have NO CASE. His tax returns are none of your business or mine neither is Obama’s. As far as Bain what he did there was LEGAL. What Obama is doing in his term as president, I may think is despicable, as long as it is constitutional and LEGAL, the only thing I can do is help vote him out. You and YOUR PEOPLE are the ones going on a fishing expedition because you are trying to avoid Obama’s dismal record. So as I said, why don’t you find something nice to write about your parties choice Oama.”

Posted by: KAP at August 24, 2012 1:25 PM

It doesn’t matter KAP, as I said before, Stephen is not concerned about facts or legality; with Stephen and all liberals, it’s about fairness and feelings.

Here is Stephen’s response to you:

“Legal doesn’t mean it looks good, or people like it. Legal doesn’t mean honest. You keep on going back to legal, but that’s a lawyer’s answer. People don’t merely want a President who does things which are legal, they want a President who does MORE than the law requires to be a good person, and an honest and responsible citizen.”

Legal doesn’t matter, its feelings and fairness. I hate to tell SD this, but the liberals are the only ones who care about this, most Americans don’t, and if they do, it will show in the election.

“As for that whole legal thing? According to one professor, the management fees to carried interest tactic that the documents showed he use would not stand up to an IRS challenge.

I think I should make something clear to the apologists: when folks like Romney dodge their taxes, we’re the ones who end up paying for things in the long run. So, this isn’t something to celebrate. This is something you should stand up against.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2012 2:35 PM

So what Stephen is saying is that we can expect the IRS to go after Romney, right Stephen???

Stephen’s earlier comment:

“When you say, Gawker, and internet gossip site is no better than Mitt Romney, what you’re saying in converse is, Mitt Romney is no better than an internet gossip site.”

Then Stephen gives us the findings of a “Professor” (an expert to impress us), who uses the Gawker site as proof for his conclusion:

“Gawker today posted some Bain documents today showing that Bain, like many other PE firms, had engaged in this practice of converting management fees into capital gain. Unlike carried interest, which is unseemly but perfectly legal, Bain’s management fee conversions are not legal. If challenged in court, Bain would lose. The Bain partners, in my opinion, misreported their income if they reported these converted fees as capital gain instead of ordinary income.”

So which is it Stephen Daugherty; is Gawker an internet gossip site, or is it a legitimate source for Professor Victor Fleischer?


C&J, it was inevitable that the left would attack the source of the article; with Stephen leading the pack, and then Stephen links to a professor who is attacking Romney and Bain’s use of the tax codes, based on the very article that Stephn has trashed. It doesn’t really get any better than this..

Posted by: Frank at August 24, 2012 4:48 PM
Comment #351434

Sorry for the double post. The first time showed it didn’t post.

Posted by: Frank at August 24, 2012 4:51 PM
Comment #351435

But I did add this comment:

C&J, it was inevitable that the left would attack the source of the article; with Stephen leading the pack, and then Stephen links to a professor who is attacking Romney and Bain’s use of the tax codes, based on the very article that Stephn has trashed. It doesn’t really get any better than this..

Posted by: Frank at August 24, 2012 4:52 PM
Comment #351436

Frank

For most of our liberal friends, fairness means a kind of leveling equality.

In real terms, it is very unfair to treat unequal behavior equally.

Posted by: C&J at August 24, 2012 5:15 PM
Comment #351437

While Obama concentrates on Bain Capital, plays golf, goes on many vacations, and runs on a ticket of “what about Romney”; an 82 year old activist nun and her two friends break into the Oakridge Nuclear Weapons Lab in TN. With a $500 million security system, and Obama’s word that our Nuclear sites are secure, we find Obama is once again on top of things. Funny, I haven’t heard any of this in the MSM.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/08/82-yr-old-activist-breaches-stringent-security-at-u-s-nuclear-weapons-lab/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Posted by: TomT at August 24, 2012 5:16 PM
Comment #351440

kctim-
You’re not satisfied, are you? No control over your life, but you’re first to try and tell everybody else, including plenty of people who do not rely on or believe in the “life begins at conception” notion, how to run their lives.

Has it occured to you that insurance companies should not have to operate within religious parameters, in order to serve the secular business and nonprofits of religious clients? Has it occurred to you that you have no business intruding on the medical privacy of Americans?

No, it hasn’t. Your principles are pretty fragile, when it comes to getting what you want, and pretty strong when it comes to stopping what you don’t.

KAP-
You know, methinks you protest too much about legal. It reeks of you saying, “I can’t defend this as responsible, honorable behavior, so I’ll claim it’s legal.

But even that may be in doubt.

Legality, sometimes, is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and I think American want and deserve more than just legal behavior out of their candidates. Don’t you think that’s true, or will you support any behavior that happens to be legal?

C&J-
Oh, are we dogging you too much?

This would have all been discussed and played out much earlier, if Romney had just disclosed his tax returns. Now people are looking to find the information by other means, so this will drag out, most likely, all the way to election day.

You want to pretend to greatness, fine. You can ignore the small-minded birther joke, the requirements not to discuss certain issues, the complete paralysis in the face of extremism. Brave, brave sir Romney, waiting to affirmatively come out against Akin until the day of the deadline, and what does Akin say? Screw you, I’m staying in the race! Here’s a man who can’t even keep his party from immolating itself with a draconian, no-exceptions anti-abortion platform, just as the nation’s eyes are upon it.

Romney’s not great. He’s keeping just ahead of his lies and his cowardly refusal to stand up to any of the radicals or extremists in your party, but you know what? I will bet you that somebody will make headlines with something controversial or stupid. Your party can’t help it at this point, it’s got too much of a critical mass of morons and crazies who’ve never been taught to keep their mouths shut. And no, claiming that we’re just as bad will not make it so, nor will it keep your people from being that dumb. They really have no idea what they’re doing anymore.

Frank-
Okay, fellow, let’s start with the fact that Welfare as you’re describing it, doesn’t exist. It hasn’t for more than a decade. But still, some idiots bring it up, and complain about it. It’s just for mothers with kids now, and no, the evidence tells us Obama’s not getting rid of the work requirement, that’s just a lie.

As for feelings? Is pride, is standing up for yourself a weak thing to do? If it is in your camp, then that explains a lot. Mister, I don’t like to get ****ed over. I don’t like having to accept the burden for something I didn’t do. The rich benefited to the tune of trillions of dollars in tax cuts from the deficits Bush and later Obama ran. But now, people like you want to give them even more cuts, while sticking the bill to the rest of us, in order to make a grand, but likely insufficient gesture towards closing up the deficit.

If you don’t feel anything confronted with a plan which is that ****ed up regarding your interests, then whatever you are, sissy, he-man, man, woman or child, you need your head examined! Emotions like that are there for a reason. People should not be naturally inclined to screw their own interests. Nature wants us to have enough of a backbone to take care of our own.

As for the rest?

It’s no wonder the establishment GOP screwed you guys over so thoroughly without you saying word one until it was all over. Illegal just means there’s a law against it. The funny thing is, and what you should dig your head out of the sand and realize, is that there’s an awful lot going on out there, that if you told people was perfectly legal, would have them beating on Congress’s door to get it outlawed. There’s even more stuff that, while people are resigned to it being legal, doesn’t exactly make them happy or sympathetic to the people involved.

Legal is a weak standard for acceptable behavior. There’s no law against farting in somebody’s face, so far as I know, but that doesn’t mean people are lining up to let you do it to them. Your problem is that you’re unwilling to admit that Romney’s behavior is obnoxious, that his line of work is one of the most despised.

More later.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2012 6:55 PM
Comment #351442

Stephen, I see your stuck on feelings and emotion, was it fair for Obama to sink half a billion of our tax money in a green energy company that went belly up laying off over a thousand employees and screwing over 300 million people who will never see that half billion dollars? Is it honorable and responsible to raise our debt 6 trillion dollars in only 3and a half years? Is it honorable or responsible to lie to us seniors about taking 716 billion from medicare to fund Obamacare? Feelings and emotions have no place in running a company if you want that company to succeed sometime you have to get brutal and make decissions that are very unpopular. Places like Bain are hired to do those exact things. So take your feelings and emotions and go cry on Obama’s shoulder, maybe he will listen but I doubt it.

Posted by: KAP at August 24, 2012 7:50 PM
Comment #351443

Good points KAP.

I never watch Sean Hannity and very seldom do I listen to him on radio, but I heard advertisement about the interviews he was have with the producers of the documentary “The Hope and The Change”, so I have been watching it. Pat Cadell is talking about the documentary and said the Obama people know about what is seen in the movie. They know Obama is in real trouble. As I said I have been watching it and I am totally shocked at the comments of 40 people who voted for Obama and are either Democrats or Independents. If this represents a cross section of those who voted for Obama, he will lose big time. I would suggest DVR the show and watch it. It’s about everyday people.

http://thehopeandthechange.com/

“The surprising personal journeys of 40 Democrats and Independents from across America who supported Obama in 2008.”

The question is, were these people disenfranchised, did they see something in Obama that never materialized, or have they been lied to by the Tea Party? The left would have us believe the Tea Party has lied to Democrats who voted for Obama, and now they regret voting for him and want to vote for Romney.

Posted by: Frank at August 24, 2012 9:56 PM
Comment #351444

Stephen

“Oh, are we dogging you too much?” Yes, you are. But you are little dogs, yapping at small things. Obama is leading the pack, trying to make the election about small things because he knows he loses on the big ones.

You have followed him down that hole.

Re “You can ignore the small-minded birther joke” I never supported the birthers and said so over and over and over. You on the other hand, are supporting the “taxers”. What does that say about our relative sizes?

If you think Romney is wrong about growing the economy, about jobs, about security etc, indeed let us have that debate. The fact that the Obama folks flee from that and want to concentrate on little things, shows that the Obama bag of tricks is empty. He doesn’t know what to do next. He only knows he wants to stay in power, so he makes himself as low as he can.

What’s lower than a snake’s belly in a wagon rut?

Posted by: C&J at August 24, 2012 9:57 PM
Comment #351445

I’m going to watch it at midnight on the rerun Frank. I was watching football and caught bits and pieces during commercials.

Posted by: KAP at August 24, 2012 10:06 PM
Comment #351446

KAP-
I’d like to think that however unfair Solyndra might be to the taxpayers, it’s balanced by the much better position we have in the solar, wind power, and battery markets. Solyndra was not our sole investment in Solar power, and nobody can expect to get every investment right.

As for the national debt?

The policies that have gotten us into this debt, and keep adding to it are the ones Bush initiated at the start of this last decade, and which Republicans have not stopped advocating for since then.

Republicans were insisting on extending the wars. They insist on making the tax cuts permanent, and then adding to them. And when the non-benefit supporting subsidies to Medicare Advantage companies, and the excessive amounts taxpayers were paying for pharmaceuticals were trimmed to offset the cost of Obama’s new plan, they screamed bloody murder.

Apparently, being a fiscal conservative means conserving the policies that got us into this fiscal situation. Americans should not feel that what Obama’s done is unfair, they should think it’s unfair for Republicans to berate the Democrats for increasing the deficit, for racking up debt, when in their capacity, they do their best to prevent policy from changing.

And no, they shouldn’t think that the 716 billion dollars in taxpayer savings that Obama created through new policies is unfair to them. It’s not aimed at their benefits, like Ryan’s plan is. Yet, your people continue to lie and exploit the fear that comes from your lies, which makes me think that you are the ones being unfair to voters. They deserved to be told the truth, and you are lying to them.

As for feelings and emotions, and their place?

A person who doesn’t feel, doesn’t have emotions as we understand it is a person who doesn’t understand the value of anything. A sociopath. I don’t believe in indulging sociopathic behavior. American needs standards, morals in how business is run.

Frank-
To quote:

The first scheme involves owning U.S. dividend-paying stocks in an offshore account and pretending, for accounting purposes, not to own the stock. Instead, the taxpayer tells the Internal Revenue Service that he owns a derivative product that is identical in every way to the stock — except it isn’t the stock, so therefore no U.S. taxes are owed. It’s called a “total return equity swap,” because the buyer still gets the benefit — the “total return” — of owning the stock, or equity.

“This use of total return equity swaps, such as to avoid the U.S. dividend withholding tax, was very widespread for more than a decade, and may not be dead yet, although the IRS issued a shot-across-the-bow Notice concerning the practice in 2010,” writes Daniel Shaviro, the Wayne Perry Professor of Taxation at New York University School of Law. “But taxpayers who engaged in it to avoid the dividend withholding tax were coming perilously close to committing tax fraud, in cases where the economic equivalence to direct ownership was too great.”

Yes, just imagine that in the history books: “President Romney came into office with a record of tax avoidance that came perilously close to tax fraud.”

Now, you try to allege a contradiction when I say that Gawker is just an internet gossip site. Well, so is drudge to a certain extent, and TMZ.

But we’re not talking about this because some Gawker blogger started saying this, and people started believing them. We’re talking about this because the site has attained and distributed 950 pages of Romney financial records, records pretty much confirmed as real. So, our primary source- me, the prof, and Gawker- isn’t Gawker, it’s the documents they leaked out into the opening, the hard, confirmable evidence of what Romney did there.

You committed a textbook logical fallacy: you think that just because it’s Gawker, not FOXNews, it’s bogus. But the documents are real, and out in the open for others to see. Others like the professors, who can rely exclusively on the leaked documents if they wanted to. They don’t have to trust the reporting of Gawker.

TomT-
Oh, that lazy president, going out to golf once every ten or twelve day. How could he have time for anything else, with that kind of obsession?

Really. Somebody tells you this is real bad, but you never really do the math on it, you just pass it on, undigested.

Including the notion that mainstream media didn’t pick up on it. I got at least a couple British sites, Reuters, and MSNBC in my crawl.

By the way, from what I read from the Reuters article, security was being handled by private contractors. Yay smaller government!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2012 10:41 PM
Comment #351447
KAP, you miss the point. It’s not about legality; it’s about feelings and fairness……because Stephen has a feeling that it’s not fair. Fairness and feelings; like a bunch of women.

So Frank you put up a strawman argument to insult Stephen but offer no proof, vitriolic BS with no proof nor logic. Then you foolishly ask :

Why does the left always jump to the conclusion that a comment by a conservative is an insult?

Are you really that stupid Frank?

The comments I made about Stephen and all liberals are true; it’s not an insult, it’s a fact.

No Frank they are not true you lying, you made them up. It is an insult and not a fact based insult at that. It is the worse kind of insult. The kind of insult that Sociologists suggest are often an indicator of flawed reasoning about the character or motivation of others. It only serves to prove your lack or reasoning ability.


Rather than try to present an alternative argument, the left immediately jumps to the emotional conclusion that it was an insult. Phx8, you have unwittingly proved my point.

Frank why present an alternative to your BS? It was an insult and your hiding the fact that it was intended to be an insult. Your a coward Frank, you can’t face the truth about your intentions. You only fool yourself and prove to us you have no credibility when you spout this nonsense.

Liberals do not exercise logic; their responses are always emotional.

Once again Frank your wrong, your statement is stupid and you cannot back it up with facts. You tell me I am a liberal and I use logic as well as reasoning and even emotional appeals from time to time. I think the problem is your lack of critical thinking skills in that you cannot process and reason when logic is presented to you, but that is just a guess. In other words you wouldn’t know logic if it came up and bit you on the ass Frank.

Perhaps you should do a little study on the makeup of men and women. Women have a tendency to be more emotional than men, and men have a tendency to be more analytical or logical than women:

So what Frank, this proves nothing. You haven’t used any logic in this thread does that make you emotional? Or better yet lets talk about faith in a 2000 year old book Frank, isn’t faith based upon emotions more than logic. Some women are much more logical than you and some are less logical then you probably….well maybe not less than you but they have the same shortcoming when it comes to logic as you do.


Hence, the conclusion of my comment is that Stephen is like a woman; basing his comments on emotion and not logic.

Then Frank your not only stupid and cowardly your a liar and bully as well, based upon this comment. The problem is your assumptions are wrong which tells me you lack the ability to process logically. But that doesn’t mean your a women Frank. It just means you have little or no critical thinking skills. Most women I know are able to better express themselves logically than you. It would be an insult to women actually to claim your a women based upon this crap you spout. Most women are more intelligent and more capable of reasoning than you appear to be.


This can be applied to most liberals. The proof: whenever discussing politics, the liberal will ALWAYS revert to what is fair or unfair. When was the last time a conservative said it “wasn’t fair” for some people to make more money than others?

No Frank it can’t be applied to most liberals. Your once again trying to group us together with your strawman argument. Is Boehner a girlyman because he is emotional and starts crying at certain point is time or are you just unable to show any emotions because you to scared to? Because a conservative doesn’t make this statement proves nothing, such a foolish comment devoid of logic Frank. Have you ever said it is unfair for rich people to pay more in taxes? Are you really this ignorant ?


I can use the term “Girleymen” if it would make you “feel” better.

So does this prove your a liar Frank and you were in fact attempting to insult others here on WB? At least have some balls Frank and tell us your insulting us instead of hiding like a … well like a … girlyman, you twit.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 24, 2012 10:41 PM
Comment #351448

j2t2, I gave you a link proving women are emotional and men are logical. Don’t blame me if you don’t want to read it.

I’m sure Stephen is happy to see another “man/woman”, defend his manliness.

The left really gets upset when their manliness is brought into question.

I’ll tell you what j2t2, let’s keep a running record of how many subjects are brought up against Romney/Ryan and see how many times “Fair” or “Feelings” are brought into the conversation?

Posted by: Frank at August 24, 2012 11:06 PM
Comment #351449

Frank-
If, if, if.

I have two words to respond to that movie you’re talking about: Citizens United. An organization led by a man who was fired for selectively editing transcripts in the Congressional investigations to make the Clintons and their staff look bad.

An organization whose lobbying arm calls for a complete withdrawal from the UN.

Now, as a person trained in how to edit, I can tell you:

A) That the filmmakers cold go through as many voters as they wanted before they settled on those 40.

B) They could probably edit whatever each and any of the 40 said to “improve” the entertainment value- read: propaganda value of the piece,

and

C) Scientific polls show much less discontent than you are feverishly anticipating.

The real trouble is, that as much as Republicans have Bashed Obama, and as much as they’ve succeeded in making his policy controversial, they’ve at least seen the man trying. They may be disappointed, some of these people, but Romney and the Republicans might worse than disappoint folks, they might succeed in scaring them.

Obama might not succeed in getting past the prejudices about his policies that Republicans have sewn, but Republicans might have some problems escaping both Bush’s legacy, and the obnoxiousness of their candidate. Your candidate is the fellow you spent the better part of the early half of the year trying to find an alternative to. Your running mate brings one of the most unpopulare policies of the last year back to the foreground.

And Akin? Akin and many other Republicans, I predict, will help scare voters for Democrats. All Democrats have to do is quote these marvellous human beings, and they’ll do most of the work for us.

That ought to tell you something, but you aren’t listening, at least not yet.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2012 11:10 PM
Comment #351450

“your lack or reasoning ability.”

Should be
” your lack of reasoning ability.”

“It was an insult and your hiding the fact that it was intended to be an insult. Your a coward Frank,”

should be

“It was an insult and you are hiding the fact that it was intended to be an insult. You are a coward Frank,”


“Your once again trying to group us together with your strawman argument.”

Should be

You are once again trying to group us together with your strawman argument.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 24, 2012 11:12 PM
Comment #351451

Stephen, Your Solyndra comment, so screw the tax payers as long as it advances YOUR PEOPLES agenda, good example of responsible, honest behavior. The 716 billion, that Obama took to fund his pet project does not help seniors in fact it cuts payments to doctors that treat seniors. 16 trillion in debt I figured you would blame Bush, typical, can’t take responsibility for your screw ups got to blame someone else like little children do. As far as America needing standards and morals on how business are to be run, you answered that with the Solyndra comment screw the taxpayers. I used to be a democrat, Stephen, but people like you drove me away from the party, Presidents like John Kennedy must be rolling over in their graves thinking of what Democrats have become.

Posted by: KAP at August 24, 2012 11:51 PM
Comment #351460
j2t2, I gave you a link proving women are emotional and men are logical. Don’t blame me if you don’t want to read it.

Frank seriously, you gave me a link, that is the best you can do? Your link shows that generally women are more emotional than men and conversely men are more logical than women. So what! You fail to grasp the obvious here Frank. You link doesn’t prove the point you were trying to make about liberals. Does it prove men men are incapable of emotions or women of logic? NO it doesn’t you twit. You have used logical fallacies and have been unable to prove them with your link. It doesn’t prove that emotions are not useful nor the logic is the only means to arrive at a conclusion. It doesn’t prove that all conservatives are emotionless zombies. And it sure doesn’t prove that conservatives use logic, in fact if anything it shows how your inability with reasoning and logic is used to arrive at conservative principles.

Do you realize that by defending your position with prattle such as “he is a girlyman”, and then lying about it, into the discussion is proof positive of your inability to logically form an intelligent response to the points put forth against you.

I’m sure Stephen is happy to see another “man/woman”, defend his manliness.

Frank I am not defending Stephen I am calling you out for your strawman, stupidity, lies,lack of reasoning ability, logical fallacies, cowardice, bullying and ignorance. It seems your unable to respond to this challenge however. How manly of you.


The left really gets upset when their manliness is brought into question.

My manliness wasn’t brought into question Frank, your veracity was brought into question. You have failed to defend it so far. Your lack of courage, or if you prefer your cowardice, was brought into question Frank and you have avoided defending it. What kind of manliness is that?


I’ll tell you what j2t2, let’s keep a running record of how many subjects are brought up against Romney/Ryan and see how many times “Fair” or “Feelings” are brought into the conversation?

For what reason Frank? What do you think this will prove? You seem to miss the point completely Frank, but I am pretty sure this will not surprise anyone. Your basic assumptions are wrong Frank. Your logic is non existent.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 25, 2012 12:23 AM
Comment #351465

Men and Women

Men and women share many characteristics and there is a lot of overlap.

The the more easily measured physical sense, we can say that some women are stronger than some men, but that 100% of the strongest human beings are men. This makes some difference that we choose to ignore. We blame discrimination for some things that are just true in the physical sense.

It is much harder to measure other aptitudes. Lawrence Summers famously lost his job at Harvard for, among other things, pointing out that women’s aptitude for math and science is consistently lower than that of men. Of course, his comments were attacked, as mine will be. People pointed out that many women were better at math and science than many men and they were right. But as in the case of physical strength, when you get to the very top, the slight differences make big differences.

After many years of feminism and in every society we know about, women gravitate towards words and men gravitate toward symbols. That is why we see many of the distributions we do. Women currently make up more than 50% of the students in U.S. universities. But they make up only around 20% of the engineering students. This ratio has not changed much and it is a worldwide truth.

You could say it was discrimination, but that is wrong. Why? Take the example of law. Years ago, law was a male profession as much as engineering. Yet today, women are well represented in law schools. It is a profession that depends on words.


Finally, we need to look at the whole life experience. As a man nearing retirement age, I am not sure that career success is the only measure of a man … or woman. Women suffer a “mother penalty”. They are less successful if they drop out of the labor force to bear and raise children.

It makes sense. If you drop out of the rat-race for ANY reason, it will be difficult to catch up. Can we compensate for that by jumping them ahead to where they might of been, to where those that did not drop out earned and learned to be? But what about general quality of life? A person who spent all his time working to get ahead is in the same sort of place the day after he retires as the one who stayed home more. The things produced outside the office may have more value. Women have more of these.

C&J have been married for 30 years. We have had a good partnership. I worked at my career for nearly thirty years and have become successful. I earn more than C. She took time off to raise the kids. She has the satisfaction of that and enjoys better relationships. She also gets as much of “my” money as I do. Who is really better off?

Posted by: C&J at August 25, 2012 10:33 AM
Comment #351467

Stephen Daugherty says:

“The real trouble is, that as much as Republicans have Bashed Obama, and as much as they’ve succeeded in making his policy controversial, they’ve at least seen the man trying. They may be disappointed, some of these people, but Romney and the Republicans might worse than disappoint folks, they might succeed in scaring them.”

Which translated means: it’s not “FAIR”, SCARE, SCARE, SCARE…FEELINGS, FEELINGS, FEELINGS.

“And Akin? Akin and many other Republicans, I predict, will help scare voters for Democrats. All Democrats have to do is quote these marvellous human beings, and they’ll do most of the work for us.”

Stephen, let’s look at this logically; MO is a Bible Belt state…Christians are against abortion…Akin is the most ant-abortion candidate running for the Senate…McCaskill is pro-abortion…therefore McCaskill will ultimately lose.

Stephen, for one who claims to be so smart, and for one who claims to not jump on the short term polls, you have certainly placed a lot of faith in the first couple of polls which came out right after Akin’s remark.

Here is a poll taken on August 13th, and you want us to believe one comment, however dumb it may be, is enough to reverse the polls 21 points? From an 11 point lead to a 10 point deficit. You are telling us that a state which is pro-life, has decided to vote for a woman who is pro-baby killer. Sorry Stephen, I don’t buy you hype.

“In the nationally watched race for U.S. Senator, which could help determine whether Republicans control the Senate, conservative Republican challenger Todd Akin is 11 points atop incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill, 51% to 40%. Akin leads 7:1 among Tea party members.
McCaskill holds 80% of the Democratic base, compared to Akin, who holds 91% of the Republican base. Independents favor the Republican by 16 points. Akin leads materially among the less educated; McCaskill ties Akin among college graduates.
Akin leads among rich and poor voters. Akin, who is a U.S. Congressman from suburban St. Louis, manages to come within 5 points of McCaskill in the Democratic stronghold of greater St. Louis. Elsewhere in the state, the Republican leads. McCaskill has a 10-point advantage among the youngest voters, but Akin leads among voters age 35+.”

http://articles.ky3.com/2012-08-13/surveyusa_33188649

j2t2, get over it you twit. Is your job on WB to defend the less fortuate liberal ignorants? If it is, then you must be one busy person.

Posted by: Frank at August 25, 2012 10:58 AM
Comment #351470

KAP-
You really need to stop ignoring what I actually say to repeat your old argument.

The Ryan plan cuts from benefits. The Obamacare plan cuts from the supply side. The sixteen billion dollar debt would not be there if we didn’t have to pay for two wars, a new medicare benefit with less money to cover things. Your policies generated the debt, but your side doesn’t have the honesty or courage to admit that.

As for the standards and morals part? The Obama Administration denied them a second chance when they came back for another loan. It might have been more politically savvy to give them that loan, and avoid the embarrassing collapse, but then this administration has better standards than that.

You can’t invest without the risk of failure, and for every Solyndra, there are ten other companies that succeeded. Republicans won’t notice that. No, Republicans needed scandals, to try and level the difference between Bush’s hundreds of billions in no-bid contracts, wasteful government spending and tax cuts, and what Obama has done.

Quit buying all that BS. Quit repeating to me talking points that have been disproven by factcheckers across the board. Quit trying to apologize for the Bush Administration, and quit pretending that you can outrun that legacy.

C&J-
I think unless you stick very close to the science, it’s a fools errand trying to lay down bright line differences. I think corporations today treat their employees too much like machines, regardless of gender. Hard work is one thing, but if you demand so much of them that they can’t raise families or be a part of their kids lives, you help produce the moral problems that people too often attribute just to the change in religious character of this country. Our sense of economics has to value something else than just earnings.

Frank-
First, we don’t have to scare them: Republicans do that with their raw material. You think, oh, you’re talking feelings. Well, you know what? Emotions are part of the basic human operating system. You use them all the time as you attempt to manipulate people.

In this case, your side is handing us the advantages. Obama’s likability ratings exceed Romney’s by 23%. he’s better trusted on taxes, healthcare, on breaking with special interests and reaching out to the other side. You might think it’s too girly to basing voting decisions on feelings, but the reality is, emotions are a basic, underlying part of how people determine their choices, and despite the fact that Romney enjoys some advantages on the economy, Romney doesn’t take consistent positions, and the ones he insists on scare people in and of themselves!

That’s what you, in your dogmatism, are unwilling to admit.

As for the poll? Well, you might not appreciate the role of emotion, but your candidate just told a whole bunch of 21st century women that if they get pregnant from a rape, then it wasn’t really rape. Up until that point, I’m not sure people were paying attention to much else than the letter by his name, and a sense of dissatisfaction with Claire McCaskill, who had become a punching bag for conservatives.

Now, they’re paying attention to Akin, and realizing just how alien his political philosophy is to theirs. Missouri went red last time, but just barely. They’re paying attention now, and for the wrong reasons.

What was a simple choice for Republicans and right leaning independents has been complicated, while the choice for Democrats and left-leaning independents has been strongly clarified. As with Sharron Angle in Nevada, a controversial, outspoken figure is taking a swing state, and making it more problematic for Republicans.

You might sympathize, but you should admit that Akin’s comments have made him a lightning rod, and have become a rallying cry for those supporting his rival. And why not? If a Democrat said something that controversial, you’d jump at the chance to bash him or her with that comment. Why should Democrats not take advantage of the unforced error of Todd Akin? Why should they not follow up on the connections, and draw associations to Romney and Ryan?

You’re expecting Democrats to simply see things your way, and do things convenient to your ends. But it doesn’t work that way. Akin has drawn attention away from the economy, and back to social issues which have become losers for Republicans outside their base.

And what do you think the chances are that Akin gets more careful about what he says? Most normal politicians would, and they’d be right to. Forgiveness must be preceded with repentance. If Akin says something more, another controversial opinion, if McCaskill can provoke him into more crazy-talk, she’ll make up even more ground, and get a lead. I’ve learned to count on Tea Partiers to fail to shut up, when it would serve their interests. I don’t expect Todd Akin to disappoint me.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 25, 2012 12:33 PM
Comment #351471

Akin down by 9 points, 50% of his party’s voters would like him to step aside.

McCaskill was notably unwilling to take the good news of the Rasmussen Poll at face value, but I think this poll tells just just how bad the damage was.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 25, 2012 12:39 PM
Comment #351472

Stephen, My advice to you is worry about Your party, YOUR PEOPLE have enough to worry about without sticking your nose in other peoples problems. Stephen you have enough to worry about with “Ole Uncle Joe’s” gaffs.

Posted by: KAP at August 25, 2012 12:40 PM
Comment #351474

By the way Stephen, Bush, had those same wars and didn’t spend that much in eight years, so try again. Stephen get off Bush already he has been gone for almost 4 years start taking responsibility for your own screw ups, you sound like a little kid always blameing someone else. Why do you think Bush didn’t loan Solyndra money, it was to risky and what about those others that went belly up. 716 billion from medicare is a cut, why do you think Obama claims his Obamacare as deficit neutrl, he stole the money from the seniors.

Posted by: KAP at August 25, 2012 12:53 PM
Comment #351475
j2t2, get over it you twit. Is your job on WB to defend the less fortuate liberal ignorants? If it is, then you must be one busy person.

Frank, Once again I am not defending anyone I am calling you out for your lying cowardly comments. I am saying your stupid for raising such a strawman argument to paint others with your brush of ignorance. I am saying you have not been able to display one bit of reasoning or critical thinking skills and your “logic” as you refer to it is absurd. To paraphrase you “rather than try to present an alternative argument, Frank immediately jumps to the emotional conclusion that he should blame others”.

Why do you not defend your point as you would have others defend theirs? Is it because it is a strawman and not worthy of serious discussion Frank. Or is it you who is the weak cowardly girlyman that you accuse others of being. Your bully tactics have no logic nor reason to them. You are using emotions,yes hatred is an emotion, to insult and degrade others here. That is just not logical Frank. You are what you claim others to be.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 25, 2012 12:58 PM
Comment #351486

“Frank-
First, we don’t have to scare them: Republicans do that with their raw material.”

And who is it that brings the word scare into the equation Stephen? It is certainly not the Republicans who you say scare people with their “raw material”. It is your side who uses the word “scare”.

Stephen, I do not use emotions to convince people and neither does any other conservative. It is you who use the term “fear”, “feel”, or “fair” in all of your posts. When you talk about the entitlement programs, you speak of “Fairness”, when you speak of taxes (or the lack of) you speak of “fairness” and you always “fear” Republican laws and you are always concerned about “feelings”.

“In this case, your side is handing us the advantages. Obama’s likability ratings exceed Romney’s by 23%. he’s better trusted on taxes, healthcare, on breaking with special interests and reaching out to the other side.”

Great poll Stephen, but the American voters are concerned about the economy and jobs. Likability rates very low in the polls of concerns, in fact, it rates on the bottom. Romney has a 52% to 43% lead over Obama on the economy. In fac Gallop goes on to say:

“Bottom Line
Overall, these data provide an illuminating insight into the structure of the presidential contest. President Obama’s greatest vulnerability appears to be the economy — not surprising, given that unemployment is still above 8% and given the low level of Americans’ confidence in the economy. At the same time, Obama has great strengths in Americans’ positive views of his personal image and characteristics, and of his position on several non-economic issues.
At this point, it appears that the two candidates’ contrasting strengths have essentially canceled themselves out, given that Obama and Romney are exactly tied in Gallup Daily tracking. However, both candidates will have the opportunity to address their weaknesses and bolster their strengths in the forthcoming conventions.”

“but your candidate just told a whole bunch of 21st century women that if they get pregnant from a rape, then it wasn’t really rape.”

Is this your opinion Stephen, or facts? If it’s facts, provide the link.

“You might sympathize, but you should admit that Akin’s comments have made him a lightning rod”

Well, I don’t know Stephen, why don’t we wait and see. Again, you are the one who has said, you don’t make snap decisions on short term polls, and again I ask, have you changed your mind?

“Akin has drawn attention away from the economy, and back to social issues which have become losers for Republicans outside their base.”

So you are admitting the left does not want to deal with the real issues, like the economy; they would rather base their campaign on attacking opponents. Like C&J said, the “small issues”.

“Akin down by 9 points, 50% of his party’s voters would like him to step aside.”

So you are saying 50% of Republicans will not vote for Akin if he don’t step down?

J2t2, your emotional response shows you to be as much of a girlyman as SD. I don’t have to defend anything, Stephen’s and your emotional responses are defense enough.

Posted by: Frank at August 25, 2012 4:02 PM
Comment #351490

Stephen

“I think unless you stick very close to the science, it’s a fools errand trying to lay down bright line differences. I think corporations today treat their employees too much like machines, regardless of gender. Hard work is one thing, but if you demand so much of them that they can’t raise families or be a part of their kids lives, you help produce the moral problems that people too often attribute just to the change in religious character of this country. Our sense of economics has to value something else than just earnings.”

Where the heck do you work? I know liberals always bring these kinds of things up. Maybe you liberals just end up with rotten employers. Or maybe you are rotten employees who provoke these kinds of responses.

Posted by: C&J at August 25, 2012 5:10 PM
Comment #351491

I think the later Jack.

Posted by: KAP at August 25, 2012 5:34 PM
Comment #351496
J2t2, your emotional response shows you to be as much of a girlyman as SD. I don’t have to defend anything, Stephen’s and your emotional responses are defense enough.

Well it seems Frank you are all hat and no cattle. Your lack of an intelligent response yet again proves that you have no honest defense for your false characterizations of others here on WB. In fact just the opposite seems to be true, you have proven yourself to be a cowardly girlyman who when faced with proving your comments cannot do so using logic and reason. Instead you response is “you are a girlyman as well”. Why? Because you have determined that my response was an emotional response. That is not logic Frank.

You have based you argument on using the words “fair” or “feel”! Yep based upon that and the study you found that women are more emotional than men you have “logically” (ha what a piece of work you are)determined that using the words fair of feel make you a girlyman. That is not logic Frank that is emotion. You have no logical basis to make this claim you have an emotional basis to make this claim. Using your approach you are a girlyman.


Here is a link to scientific testing and the results may surprise you Frank.

“Conservatives, more likely to have an enlarged amygdala, would tend to process information initially using emotion.”

“So—for liberals to make a case for an idea or cause, they come armed with data, research studies, and experts. They are convinced of an idea if all the data checks out–basically they assign meaning and value to ideas that fit within the scientific method, because that’s their primary thinking style. Emotion doesn’t play as big of a role in validation. Not to say that liberals are unfeeling, but just more likely to set emotion aside when judging an idea initially, and factor it in later. Checks out scientifically = valuable. Liberals can get just as emotionally attached to an idea, but it’s usually not the primary trigger for acceptance of an idea.”

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/

So Frank it would seem, using your emotions that you like to believe are logic, that conservatives are girleyman and liberals are not. But that really isn’t the case Frank. The whole issue is a strawman and you have fell for it.

Try debating the issue next time.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 26, 2012 2:27 AM
Comment #351509

Good grief j2t2, you’re just like Stephen and Adienne; you link to some left wing loonytoon and try to present it as facts. From you link, a bio on the author of your “evidence” LOL:

“Chris Mooney is host of the Point of Inquiry podcast and the author of three books, The Republican War on Science, Storm World, and Unscientific America. He was recently seen on MSNBC’s “The Last Word” discussing “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science,” and recently wrote for The American Prospect magazine about how the reality-based community is moving to the left.”

It sure sounds like this clown is bi-partisan, doesn’t it???


Posted by: Frank at August 26, 2012 4:10 PM
Comment #351511

Frank it is a link to discover magazine. The link was authored by Andrea Kuszewski as a guest columnist. Mooney is the usual columnist but not in this case.


“This is an invited guest post by Andrea Kuszewski, a Behavior Therapist and Consultant for children on the autism spectrum based in Florida, and a researcher and manager with VORTEX: Integrative Science Improving Societies, based in Bogotá, Colombia. She blogs at The Rogue Neuron and tweets as @AndreaKuszewski.”

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/


While you may automatically disqualify Mooney, which is an emotional response BTW, he seems to be fair and balanced in other posts. Try reading the article before you jump to conclusions.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 26, 2012 4:30 PM
Comment #351523

I have no emotion response one way or the other, I look at all things through logic.

The logical response is, Obama doesn’t have a snow balls chance in hell of fooling the American people a second time.

Posted by: Frank at August 26, 2012 8:11 PM
Comment #351541

Ya know Frank you might think your response is “logic” but it isn’t. You might think it is a reasoned or intelligent response but it isn’t. Sorry it just isn’t. It is emotional. Logic dictates you respond to the issue I raised. You didn’t. You deviated from the subject at hand. This is a logical fallacy called a red herring.

You must not have an answer so your hatred and anger, both of which are emotions, have got the better of you and you have vented your anger on the object of your hatred Obama. Obama isn’t even part of the conversation. I can only assume you now agree with the article and the conclusions drawn from the article as you have not presented anything to the contrary.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 26, 2012 11:30 PM
Comment #351546

Stephen

“You’re not satisfied, are you? No control over your life, but you’re first to try and tell everybody else, including plenty of people who do not rely on or believe in the “life begins at conception” notion, how to run their lives.”

Aw, how easy petty partisanship makes you forget things.
Just because I don’t lie and call it “pro-choice,” doesn’t mean I am against abortion, Stephen.
It doesn’t matter when one thinks life begins, forcing someone to support abortion is dictating how people “run their lives” and telling people to take care of themselves is letting them “run their own lives.”

“Has it occured to you that insurance companies should not have to operate within religious parameters, in order to serve the secular business and nonprofits of religious clients?”

Has it ever occurred to you that insurance companies are private businesses and should still have the right to run their business as they best see fit?
You see Stephen, I actually believe in freedom of choice, I don’t just pay it lip service as you. If you don’t like the policies of one business, you go to one that you do like.

“Has it occurred to you that you have no business intruding on the medical privacy of Americans?”

But intruding on personal and religious beliefs is fine? I don’t think so.
If you don’t want people fighting against medical issues, stop mandating they pay for them for you.

“No, it hasn’t. Your principles are pretty fragile, when it comes to getting what you want, and pretty strong when it comes to stopping what you don’t.”

My principles are solid in both cases and you know it. The fact that I do not share in your hypocrisy proves that.
Freedom of choice is what I want and I am deadset on reclaiming it. There is nothing fragile about that.


“Getting what I want” and “getting what you want,” are two very different things Stephen.
What I want, requires respect for me and the principles that our country was founded on. What you want, requires forced compliance throught the shredding of those principles.

It is your “principles” that truly are “fragile,” Stephen. Because without forced compliance, they fail.

Posted by: kctim at August 27, 2012 10:55 AM
Comment #351737

Frank-
Actually, according to Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight, he has a 68% chance of winning.

So, if by snowballs chance in hell, we mean worse than even odds, well, you’re going to be disappointed.

kctim-
The whole “invading religious beliefs” thing?

You’ve got to look at it deeper than you are. You’re taking the right wing’s side without thinking.

First, it has been the law of the land for well over ten years that contraception be covered. The difference here is a lack of out of pocket cost. Second, the claim in the Catholic Church’s case is that the cost of such plans can’t even be picked up by the insurance companies on their own dime. This is with a person who may not even be Christian, and the claim is that they should be able to deny this coverage even if the money is only coming from the corporate coffers, owing to the notion that they paid in some of that money.

The Catholic Church is trying to dictate to potentially non-catholic, even non-Christian employees and secular insurance companies what kind of coverage they can repectively get, and provide customers with. If that is your idea of freedom, then you’re confused. Once it’s the insurance company’s money, the church has no more responsibility for the decisions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2012 2:56 PM
Post a comment