"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yes, because I want a person who would ruthlessly attack the bottom line, rather than a guy who would run around negotiating with '70s era unions. Romney Sr. was of a different time.

But the bigger question is, why the fuck are we debating whether Romney was a better manager than his dad?

Actually, a kind of amusing set of steps.

Me: Romney being successful as a financier with Daddy's money doesn't make him a good manager.

You: Romney made more money than his Dad.

Me: I don't know if he made more money than his Dad, but his Dad was a manager he wasn't.

You: He'll attack the bottom line.

There's a series of disconnects worthy of a presidential debate.

I don't get what you mean by "he'll attack the bottom line" as a response to "is a financier a manager" -- his approach to attacking the bottom line is to sit on a board and tell the real manager to do it. That's what a financier does.

[Replaced_Texan]

Interesting...

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin today ruled against Dennis Kucinich's bid to get on the Democratic presidential primary ballot in Texas. State party officials excluded Kucinich from the March 4 ballot because he had refused to sign a pledge to support all Democratic nominees. Yeakel upheld the party's decision.

Yeakel ruled that the Texas Democratic Party's right to set rules about who can associate with it outweighed Kucinich's free speech rights.

Yeakel said if Kucinich did not want to sign the Democratic Party's loyalty oath, he was free to run for president as a Republican, a third party candidate or as an independent.

Kucinich had signed the oath in his 2004 presidential bid but refused to do so this time. The oath would have required him to promise to "fully" support the party's presidential nominee if it was someone other than himself.

Apparently Kucinich says that it's because of the war, and he doesn't want to support someone who doesn't get us out of Iraq.

Oh, and

The lawsuit was brought in Texas by Kucinich supporter Willie Nelson, who was not present at the hearing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Actually, a kind of amusing set of steps.

Me: Romney being successful as a financier with Daddy's money doesn't make him a good manager.

You: Romney made more money than his Dad.

Me: I don't know if he made more money than his Dad, but his Dad was a manager he wasn't.

You: He'll attack the bottom line.

There's a series of disconnects worthy of a presidential debate.

I don't get what you mean by "he'll attack the bottom line" as a response to "is a financier a manager" -- his approach to attacking the bottom line is to sit on a board and tell the real manager to do it. That's what a financier does.

Stop being obtuse. You're giving me a headache. A financier will set goals and tell managers to clear cut the dead weight out of a company (at least those I've seen). Romney would (at least he says this week) apply that priciple to the govt, hopefully.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
A financier will set goals and tell managers to clear cut the dead weight out of a company (at least those I've seen). Romney would (at least he says this week) apply that priciple to the govt, hopefully.

Every republican says "I'll cut the size of government". But once elected they find out it's not so easy. First, you have to start with the budget. But, surprise, after social security, interest, and defense, there's surprisingly little left to cut. What is there are a bunch of sacred cows that Congress wants to keep.

And then you want to try to reduce the size of government agencies. Well, guess what--they actually need people to run those agencies and provide the services that people consider sacred. What agencies are you going to cut, and how? IRS? Let's fire tax examiners. EPA? Let's get rid of scientists and enforcers. Soc. Sec.? Sure, because seniors have lots of time to spend on the phone waiting to get a problem solved.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Ms. magazine apparently refused to run this ad:



Recockulous.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Every republican says "I'll cut the size of government". But once elected they find out it's not so easy. First, you have to start with the budget. But, surprise, after social security, interest, and defense, there's surprisingly little left to cut. What is there are a bunch of sacred cows that Congress wants to keep.

And then you want to try to reduce the size of government agencies. Well, guess what--they actually need people to run those agencies and provide the services that people consider sacred. What agencies are you going to cut, and how? IRS? Let's fire tax examiners. EPA? Let's get rid of scientists and enforcers. Soc. Sec.? Sure, because seniors have lots of time to spend on the phone waiting to get a problem solved.

Defense should be ruthlessly cut. And don't tell me we can't cut slice off billions upon billions of pork. Every single program geared toward the non-eesentials (courts, roads, sensible defense, etc..) should be dissolved.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ms. magazine apparently refused to run this ad:



Recockulous.

What's the surprise? They're all kind of busted up.

[John Phoenix]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Defense should be ruthlessly cut. And don't tell me we can't cut slice off billions upon billions of pork. Every single program geared toward the non-eesentials (courts, roads, sensible defense, etc..) should be dissolved.

I'd like to know how much money we could save by eliminating the program to go to Mars and much, if not all, of the rest of NASA.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by John Phoenix
I'd like to know how much money we could save by eliminating the program to go to Mars and much, if not all, of the rest of NASA.

Go nuts

NASA is a 30B pimple.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Stop being obtuse. You're giving me a headache. A financier will set goals and tell managers to clear cut the dead weight out of a company (at least those I've seen). Romney would (at least he says this week) apply that priciple to the govt, hopefully.

The idea that you get more experience relevant to making intelligent cuts in a government budget as a financier than a Senator is the thing I'm questioning. They're both basically members of committees rather than managers per se.

He's had direct experience that's relevant as a governor - that means more than anything he did at Bain. How'd he do?

You may say that he is the guy who likes to swing the hatchet more than Hillary, for example. But that's a question of attitude not experience. But suggesting that Bain gives him more "experience" than Hillary - total hogwash! Yet it is the cornerstone of his campaign.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Go nuts

NASA is a 30B pimple.

QTA: Whoops. A 16B pimple. Hard to estimate the size of a pimple that small.


ETA that i meant to edit not quote, but whatever. One post closer to a new thread title.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
But suggesting that Bain gives him more "experience" than Hillary - total hogwash! Yet it is the cornerstone of his campaign.

And yet the cornerstone of hers is that she was married to President Bill....

[Tyrone Slothrop]

A prediction: The losing candidate for Vice President in November will be Huckabee.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A prediction: The losing candidate for Vice President in November will be Huckabee.

If Huckabee is the veep candidate, where does that put Colbert?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
A prediction: The losing candidate for Vice President in November will be Huckabee.

So you predict a GOP loss, coupled with the suck-up of _______ to evangelicals. Not earth shattering, but I disagree.

But okay, Carnak, how about a follow-up - Who hasn't Hillary/Obama bloodied enough such that they would accept their Veep?