Summations Only

Ye of little faith. Start reading 538 and when Nate Silver thinks Obama won't win, then you have my permission to get worried.

So, the "conspiracy" here is that Obama is hiding the fact that both of his parents were American citizens living in Hawaii where he was born?

Well, to start with Buz, it's Bain Capital, not "Banes Capitol", which already proves that you know the least about the issue of anyone here. Secondly, private equity financing isn't something that Bain Capital picked up after Mitt Romney left, it's what Bain Capital was doing because it's what Mitt Romney decided they should do:

quote:

---

Beginning in 1989, the firm, which began as a venture capital source investing in start-up companies, adjusted its strategy to focus on leveraged buyouts and growth capital investments in more mature companies.[26] By the end of 1990, Bain had raised $175 million of capital and financed 35 companies with combined revenues of $3.5 billion.[27]
In July 1992, Bain acquired Ampad (originally American Pad & Paper) from Mead Corporation, which had acquired the company in 1986. Mead which had been experiencing difficulties integrating Ampad's products into its existing product lines, generated a cash gain of $56 million on the sale.[28] Under Bain's ownership, the company enjoyed a significant growth in sales from $106.7 million in 1992 to $583.9 million in 1996, when the company was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Under Bain's ownership, the company also made a number of acquisitions, including writing products company SCM in July 1994, brand names from the American Trading and Production Corporation in August 1995, WR Acquisition and the Williamhouse-Regency Division of Delaware, Inc. in October, 1995, Niagara Envelope Company, Inc. in 1996, and Shade/Allied, Inc. in February 1997.[29] Ampad's revenue began to decline in 1997 and the company laid off employees and closed production facilities to maintain profitability. However, the company filed for bankruptcy in 2001 and the assets were acquired in 2003 by Crescent Investments. Bain's ownership of Ampad, is estimated to have generated more than $100 million in profit for Bain.[30]

---

Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain Capital until 2002. Did you mean Fox? This is an uncharacteristically full-throated defense of the mainstream media otherwise.

What makes you think he's viable? Nate Silver's giving him an 8% chance of winning.I mean he's still in the race because he has no choice, he can't drop out because at this point he can't be replaced. The party voted to nominate him, he accepted, and there's no do-over. He's the GOP candidate, end of story. People have donated money to his campaign and, legally, it can't be used for anything but campaign expenses. He literally cannot legally give up. He just shambles on to an almost certain defeat in November, hoping that Obama makes a mistake.But Obama doesn't make mistakes. His opponents do. It's amazing how people fall all over themselves to let Obama win, isn't it? Jack Ryan? Alan Keyes? John McCain? And now Romney? You just can't make any money betting against Obama. The election was always his to lose, and that's exactly what Obama does not do - commit unforced errors and lose when he should have won.

Well, he's "the guy" for the Republican Party agenda. Why would people who support that agenda stop supporting him? Sure, but doesn't Geert Wilders run your Parliament? Sounds like you guys have your own experience with total nutbags winning elections.

Food has always been scarce in the Soviet Union, even before there was a Soviet Union. Except for the Ukraine, the area's arable land is too far north to have much of a growing season.It's not like starvation was something new that happened with Communism.

Oh, don't get me wrong. The collective farm system was a disaster for Ukranian and Russian agriculture, and it happened almost just as Russian farmers had finally figured out the combination of practices necessary to get enough food from their land.But it's not exactly something you can call "redistribution", and the failure of Ukranian farms wasn't from "farmers opting not to work any harder if the state was going to take their wealth", it was from the practice of collective farming where motivated, expert cultivators were murdered and replaced with unskilled labor from the cities.Russia and the Ukraine were always on the verge of famine, and Communism pushed them over, no doubt. But that really has nothing to do with "redistribution" in any sense. The collective farm system wasn't about "redistribution", it was about a radical change in farm practices.

It's a great paper, isn't it? I mean, if it's raining and you need to keep dry during the quick dash to your bus stop.

I think you'll find that what we were denying was your absurd interpretation that they were the result of "redistribution." I notice you omit that in your recap of the event.

Why, it's a regular public fucking service.

Well, if you insist. I'd start by pointing out that nearly everything Krauthammer mentions is actually domestic policy, not foreign policy. You can tell the difference because domestic policy is the stuff that happens inside US borders.Further you can ask that Google review a video on YouTube by clicking a single button that is accessible to everyone. Four years of what failure? Osama bin Laden is dead; Al-Qaeda is in disarray. Zero attacks on US soil. Americans now have more trust in Democrats on foreign policy than Republicans. As much as this vile troll would like to lay events in the Middle East at Obama's feet, how is that anything more than Republicans blaming Obama for anything bad that happens, like when they blamed him for droughts in the midwest?

Right, it's not like Obama's ever been President, or anything.Oh, wait.

No, this is exactly wrong. The US government, particularly at the Presidental level, isn't a business and it isn't run like a business. For instance, Congress doesn't report to the President and they don't take orders from him. In fact, they don't have to do anything.That requires a very different kind of leadership. Romney has only ever led in situations where his authority comes with an obligation of his subordinates to obey. But Congress is subordinate to no one; leading the United States from the office of the President is a process of consensus-building, not a process where you simply hand down marching orders.Contrast Obama's incredibly effective term as President with Romney's essential non-activity as governor, and you can see that Obama's experience has served him much better than Romney's. For that matter, look at their campaigns - Obama has yet to make a mistake, but Romney is dealing with defections, gaffes, mixed messages, and other symptoms of failing leadership at the top. Look, you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The fact is, Obama is the most successful Democratic president of my lifetime, and yours. Maybe you don't like his agenda but he's been undeniably effective in getting it passed. The notion that Obama suffers from a "lack of leadership" is just another one of those contradictory things that conservatives keep trying to pin on him - he's the Chicago insider who's foreign birth estranges him from the idea of America, he's the messianic leader who no one will follow, he's the empty suit with the gift of gab who can't speak clearly without a teleprompter. None of it sticks because none of it makes any sense, unless you're trapped inside the "epistemic closure" of the conservative bubble.

Oo, that's a good one, too. Oh, and also - he's the guy who never stops working to undermine America but takes too many vacations.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.