Conquer Club

BBS, don't make me more than a little mad. You never know what will happen when I reach full monkey madness.




--Andy

That's easy! We'll just boot you into that time machine, and problem solved!

Let other generations of people deal with wrathful monkeys.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Since this has shockingly degenerated into intellectual flaming... I'm gonna sum up:

Symmetry: Obama is an awesome diplomat. Romney would be a failure (shambles).
BBS: Here are all the bad things that have happened involving the US, diplomatically, since Obama became president.
Symmetry: Dodge.

Bit unfair, no? Obama is a pretty good diplomat, and certainly better than Romney. Where's the dodge in that? I'm pretty sure I never said Obama was awesome.

I have a limited amount of awe, but a fair amount of ire. Romney is irritating.

I was summing up. Summing up involves taking liberties with the details. BBS provided a rather lengthy, although partial, list of Obama's diplomatic faults. You've failed to address them. So I think the word "awesome" is acceptable.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Since this has shockingly degenerated into intellectual flaming... I'm gonna sum up:

Symmetry: Obama is an awesome diplomat. Romney would be a failure (shambles).
BBS: Here are all the bad things that have happened involving the US, diplomatically, since Obama became president.
Symmetry: Dodge.

Bit unfair, no? Obama is a pretty good diplomat, and certainly better than Romney. Where's the dodge in that? I'm pretty sure I never said Obama was awesome.

I have a limited amount of awe, but a fair amount of ire. Romney is irritating.

I was summing up. Summing up involves taking liberties with the details. BBS provided a rather lengthy, although partial, list of Obama's diplomatic faults. You've failed to address them. So I think the word "awesome" is acceptable.

Because I didn't address BBS adequately, my position is now changed? Taking liberties with the details is one thing, simply being dishonest is another.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Since this has shockingly degenerated into intellectual flaming... I'm gonna sum up:

Symmetry: Obama is an awesome diplomat. Romney would be a failure (shambles).
BBS: Here are all the bad things that have happened involving the US, diplomatically, since Obama became president.
Symmetry: Dodge.

Bit unfair, no? Obama is a pretty good diplomat, and certainly better than Romney. Where's the dodge in that? I'm pretty sure I never said Obama was awesome.

I have a limited amount of awe, but a fair amount of ire. Romney is irritating.

I was summing up. Summing up involves taking liberties with the details. BBS provided a rather lengthy, although partial, list of Obama's diplomatic faults. You've failed to address them. So I think the word "awesome" is acceptable.

Because I didn't address BBS adequately, my position is now changed? Taking liberties with the details is one thing, simply being dishonest is another.

Sym, you steadfastly think Obama is diplomatic. Obviously, that was shown to not be the case, but it doesn't matter if someone offers criticism which contradicts your previously held notions. You're not here to learn but rather to launch into monologues and berate people with excuses and logical fallacies whenever they object.

You're getting tedious, Symmetry, and more than a little mad.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Since this has shockingly degenerated into intellectual flaming... I'm gonna sum up:

Symmetry: Obama is an awesome diplomat. Romney would be a failure (shambles).
BBS: Here are all the bad things that have happened involving the US, diplomatically, since Obama became president.
Symmetry: Dodge.

Bit unfair, no? Obama is a pretty good diplomat, and certainly better than Romney. Where's the dodge in that? I'm pretty sure I never said Obama was awesome.

I have a limited amount of awe, but a fair amount of ire. Romney is irritating.

I was summing up. Summing up involves taking liberties with the details. BBS provided a rather lengthy, although partial, list of Obama's diplomatic faults. You've failed to address them. So I think the word "awesome" is acceptable.

Because I didn't address BBS adequately, my position is now changed? Taking liberties with the details is one thing, simply being dishonest is another.

Sym, you steadfastly think Obama is diplomatic. Obviously, that was shown to not be the case, but it doesn't matter if someone offers criticism which contradicts your previously held notions. You're not here to learn but rather to launch into monologues and berate people with excuses and logical fallacies whenever they object.

You're getting tedious, Symmetry, and more than a little mad.

He's not diplomatic now? That he's poor on his diplomacy or not is a different issue. Arguing that he isn't diplomatic is a pretty radical take,

Symmetry, I know that a scale between diplomatic and hawkish may seem to nuanced of a concept for you, but I can only pray that you'll recover from your fallacious thinking.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Symmetry, I know that a scale between diplomatic and hawkish may seem to nuanced of a concept for you, but I can only pray that you'll recover from your fallacious thinking.

Too, you meant to write too.

I have no idea of the scale between diplomatic and hawkish.

I suspect it's not an actual scale.

Provisionally let's put me at a 5 (assuming your scale is out of ten).

If he wins, will his name be The Gaffer?

Could be, but I do love "Flip Romney."

Bain Capital closing profitable Illinois auto parts plant

It's a pretty big deal here. Dudes are living downtown in tents, in OCTOBER. That's mid-winter in Canada. And winter lasts a long time.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Bain Capital closing profitable Illinois auto parts plant

It's a pretty big deal here. Dudes are living downtown in tents, in OCTOBER. That's mid-winter in Canada. And winter lasts a long time.

How does that make it a Mitt Romney scandal?

Not a big deal on the national level, but it's a huge deal locally. People have been on tv talking about how they've torn down their own Romney support signs because he's profiting from the removal of jobs from the area. Our unemployment rate is already well above national average, and the plant is profitable, but they're still shipping the factory itself to China. Part of the labor force was sent to China to train their replacements and still another portion has been living in tents downtown in protest. Our local government has written several useless letters to Bain and to Romney, though they're just as well off saving paper for all the good it's doing. It's a huge deal in my community. As Sarah Thompson said, she's 'pretty disgusted that a person can make a profit from the suffering of other people, then say that they have no knowledge of where that profit is coming from.' She's right, that doesn't make it good. But that's what Romney said, that he doesn't know anything about the closing of the Freeport plant, though he's making money off of it.

How's Romney profiting from a company he doesn't even work for/own?

Romney owns $8 billion of Bain, Bain owns 51% (controlling) of Sensata. Romney is fully aware of what's happening in Freeport, he just doesn't care. You cannot serve both God and Money.



And to be fully clear, this is a non-union plant that made record profits. But they're trying to squeeze every penny out of it that they can.

Let's assume that all of that is true. How is it the government's job to become involved? What authority does the government have to tell a business where it is allowed to have its shop? If a company wants to move operations overseas, especially away from an environment where the current president wants to do everything in his power to make taxes and regulations skyrocket, why don't they have the freedom to do that? Should businesses also be forbidden to close down because people will lose jobs?

Night Strike wrote:Let's assume that all of that is true. How is it the government's job to become involved? What authority does the government have to tell a business where it is allowed to have its shop? If a company wants to move operations overseas, especially away from an environment where the current president wants to do everything in his power to make taxes and regulations skyrocket, why don't they have the freedom to do that? Should businesses also be forbidden to close down because people will lose jobs?

1) Pre-NAFTA we had laws that prevented businesses from shipping Jobs overseas. Republicans AND Democrats axed it, and they thought they were doing the right thing.

2) Republicans have blocked several measures to bring jobs to America, including the American Jobs Act, and the Bring Jobs Back to America Act, both of which were fully funded and would not have added to the national debt. Both could have saved Sensata-Freeport and Honeywell.
I would also add the fully-funded Veterans Jobs Bill, which Republicans also blocked. But that one wouldn't have helped Sensata-Freeport.

3) This isn't a government issue; this is a issue that voters have with Mitt Romney. When he profits from an immoral business deal, then it's ok because American's are all about profit. The consequences of his dealings are ignored. So when these fired workers need unemployment benefits or welfare because Bain prefers the Chinese system, then they are freeloading moochers who are adding to our national debt.
Mitt Romney could step in anytime and save these jobs. He could. But he wont. Instead he'll just take the money. Like Jesus would do.

I find it ironic that liberals decry any perceived lack of (approved) morals in businesses but demand that any morality be removed from the government.

I find it ironic that you believe your morality is derived from your religion, then try forcibly impose your morals on the rest of us through government.

I find it ironic that a follower of Christ supports a politician who behaves the opposite way of Christ.

I also find it ironic that a fucking atheist is the one who's always pointing this shit out.

So no Christian person can own a business or make a profit because an atheist deems it as ungodly?

Night Strike wrote:So no Christian person can own a business or make a profit because an atheist deems it as ungodly?

No Christian can profit from someone else's suffering. Ever.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So no Christian person can own a business or make a profit because an atheist deems it as ungodly?

No Christian can profit from someone else's suffering. Ever.

Businesses aren't charities. If a person has long-term suffering because their employer closed or left, then that's their own fault for not finding a new job. Why should the owner of a business suffer without pay or profits just so other people can have a job?

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Night Strike wrote:So no Christian person can own a business or make a profit because an atheist deems it as ungodly?

No Christian can profit from someone else's suffering. Ever.

Businesses aren't charities. If a person has long-term suffering because their employer closed or left, then that's their own fault for not finding a new job. Why should the owner of a business suffer without pay or profits just so other people can have a job?

I don't have to argue with you. The Bible says "love they neighbor." It says "you cannot serve both God and Money."

That plant made record profits last year. No one at Bain is suffering an inch for lack of profits. If Jesus were here, you believe that he would ship the whole factory to China to make even more money?
No, of course you don't think that he would do that to his own neighbors. But Mitt Romney would. He doesn't care a wink what happens to these people.

Mitt Romney no longer owns and manages Bain Capital. As for not having two masters: seeking profit does not make money that person's master. And people can still love their neighbor; that doesn't mean they have to give them a job.