Stericycle

[Jauronimo]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/john-king-bain/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

Consensus reached. Sorry, Juror8. You need a new last straw.

[Nanker]

Was BO the President when GM, Chrysler, and Solyndra went bankrupt?

Was he still in charge at that time?

[Juror#8]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/john-king-bain/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

Consensus reached. Sorry, Juror8. You need a new last straw.

 

Just don't buy what they're selling man. Doesn't mean that I can't be wrong. But I don't buy it. Too many continuous connections that were ongoing for too long to be satiated by the 'hard stop' argument.

 

I'm also not too convinced by this - what is essentially the crux of the support angle:

 

"To be clear, all four of the sources voiced professional loyalty and personal respect for Romney. And all four have a vested interest in defending the work of Bain. But they were consistent in describing Romney's departure as abrupt and in saying they could not recall him around the office in the months that followed."

 

But that notwithstanding, there are too many problems with him as a man and as a leader. But you know that already...or at least you know that some people feel that way (whether you agree with it or not)...

 

So there is no point in arguing around the periphery of likely unchanging opinion.

[Doc]

Just don't buy what they're selling man. Doesn't mean that I can't be wrong. But I don't buy it. Too many continuous connections that were ongoing for too long to be satiated by the 'hard stop' argument.

 

I'm also not too convinced by this - what is essentially the crux of the support angle:

 

"To be clear, all four of the sources voiced professional loyalty and personal respect for Romney. And all four have a vested interest in defending the work of Bain. But they were consistent in describing Romney's departure as abrupt and in saying they could not recall him around the office in the months that followed."

 

But that notwithstanding, there are too many problems with him as a man and as a leader. But you know that already...or at least you know that some people feel that way (whether you agree with it or not)...

 

So there is no point in arguing around the periphery of likely unchanging opinion.

It's a non-issue either way. Some jobs were outsourced by Bain, but more importantly, more jobs than those were created by them. Getting all indignant because jobs were outsourced, much less because it made a private equity firm more money (which is it's job), is silly.

[jjamie12]

Just don't buy what they're selling man. Doesn't mean that I can't be wrong. But I don't buy it. Too many continuous connections that were ongoing for too long to be satiated by the 'hard stop' argument.

 

I'm also not too convinced by this - what is essentially the crux of the support angle:

 

"To be clear, all four of the sources voiced professional loyalty and personal respect for Romney. And all four have a vested interest in defending the work of Bain. But they were consistent in describing Romney's departure as abrupt and in saying they could not recall him around the office in the months that followed."

 

I'll re-post this here:

 

From your link:

 

"[A] spokeswoman for Bain maintained that Romney was not involved in the Stericycle deal in 1999, saying that he had "resigned" months before the stock purchase was negotiated. The spokeswoman noted that following his resignation Romney remained only "a signatory on certain documents," until his separation agreement with Bain was finalized in 2002. And Bain issued this statement: "Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies since that time."

 

Is it really so hard to believe what Bain and several other people are saying? It's really just *outlandish* that while negotiating the separation agreement, he had to remain a signatory to certain disclosures? That's just NOT possibly true?

 

 

But that notwithstanding, there are too many problems with him as a man and as a leader. But you know that already...or at least you know that some people feel that way (whether you agree with it or not)...

 

So there is no point in arguing around the periphery of likely unchanging opinion.

 

I respect your right to have this irrational opinion, however you should realize that it is what it is: Completely irrational.

 

 

History of fixing struggling entities? Check.

Executive of a successful private venture? Check.

Executive of a successful public-private venture? Check.

Executive of a large public entity? Check.

History of working across the aisle to find solutions? Check.

 

 

Let's put it this way: If this were a job interview and not politics, there is no sane person who would offer the job to Obama over Romney. But since he's got an ® next to his name we have to invent reasons to not vote for him.

[WorldTraveller]

I'll re-post this here:

 

From your link:

 

"[A] spokeswoman for Bain maintained that Romney was not involved in the Stericycle deal in 1999, saying that he had "resigned" months before the stock purchase was negotiated. The spokeswoman noted that following his resignation Romney remained only "a signatory on certain documents," until his separation agreement with Bain was finalized in 2002. And Bain issued this statement: "Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies since that time."

 

Is it really so hard to believe what Bain and several other people are saying? It's really just *outlandish* that while negotiating the separation agreement, he had to remain a signatory to certain disclosures? That's just NOT possibly true?

 

 

 

 

I respect your right to have this irrational opinion, however you should realize that it is what it is: Completely irrational.

 

 

History of fixing struggling entities? Check.

Executive of a successful private venture? Check.

Executive of a successful public-private venture? Check.

Executive of a large public entity? Check.

History of working across the aisle to find solutions? Check.

 

 

Let's put it this way: If this were a job interview and not politics, there is no sane person who would offer the job to Obama over Romney. But since he's got an ® next to his name we have to invent reasons to not vote for him.

 

It's not worth the effort, he is a supporter of the president, and you won't change his mind.

[Nanker]

Just don't buy what they're selling man. Doesn't mean that I can't be wrong. But I don't buy it. Too many continuous connections that were ongoing for too long to be satiated by the 'hard stop' argument.

 

I'm also not too convinced by this - what is essentially the crux of the support angle:

 

"To be clear, all four of the sources voiced professional loyalty and personal respect for Romney. And all four have a vested interest in defending the work of Bain. But they were consistent in describing Romney's departure as abrupt and in saying they could not recall him around the office in the months that followed."

 

But that notwithstanding, there are too many problems with him as a man and as a leader. But you know that already...or at least you know that some people feel that way (whether you agree with it or not)...

 

So there is no point in arguing around the periphery of likely unchanging opinion.

 

Don't be conflicted. Bilzrul after months of hand wringing contemplation figured out that she simply could not vote for John McCain because he just wasn't liberal enough. Face it. You're not going to vote for the man. Give up any pretext you have and embrace your inner longing for government handouts.

[Doc]

Don't be conflicted. Bilzrul after months of hand wringing contemplation figured out that she simply could not vote for John McCain because he just wasn't liberal enough. Face it. You're not going to vote for the man. Give up any pretext you have and embrace your inner longing for government handouts.

Ah, the cult of personality. Forget that he's an incompetent fool, Barry's just SO likeable that some people feel compelled to vote for him on that alone.

[Nanker]

Ah, the cult of personality. Forget that he's an incompetent fool, Barry's just SO likeable that some people feel compelled to vote for him on that alone.

 

True. Why, he'd beat any Republican with both hands tied behind his back.

Trouble is, Axelrod is having a hell of a time tying even one of Mitt's hands behind his back.

[Juror#8]

 

Is it really so hard to believe what Bain and several other people are saying? It's really just *outlandish* that while negotiating the separation agreement, he had to remain a signatory to certain disclosures? That's just NOT possibly true?

 

Yes it is diffuclt to believe that his resignation was finalized 3 years later.

 

 

 

 

I respect your right to have this irrational opinion, however you should realize that it is what it is: Completely irrational.

 

 

History of fixing struggling entities? Check.

Executive of a successful private venture? Check.

Executive of a successful public-private venture? Check.

Executive of a large public entity? Check.

History of working across the aisle to find solutions? Check.

 

 

Let's put it this way: If this were a job interview and not politics, there is no sane person who would offer the job to Obama over Romney. But since he's got an ® next to his name we have to invent reasons to not vote for him.

 

It's cool that you've over-simplified the matter but unfortunately, given the nuances of the world at large, it's not very pragmatic.

 

Nothing that you've said in your 5 sentence glee club pamphlet for Romney addresses the issues that I (and many others) have with his lack of leadership, lack of constitution, lack of consistency.

 

I have a friend who opened up a successful janitorial services biz that began with two employees and is now a 30 employee operation that serves 4 states, 15+ counties, and now has contracts with the big quasi-government entities in NoVA. and he just made his first million in FY2010.

 

He's buying out a couple of local franchisees and SPs to keep the show going. He'll end up hiring another 30 employees in the next 15 months.

 

And he did that without a wealthy upbringing, hundreds of advisors thinking for him, an ivy league background, etc. ****, he had to actually work for his success. In fact, he did that with his $1400 tax return from 2007 and craigslist.

 

Plus, since the 11th grade, I haven't known Jerome to flip flop on a single meaningful political belief and he is consistent in what he says.

 

And he has a history of employing different races of people and having them work together towards a common purpose.

 

Since that's your criteria, maybe J-Dub should be president too?

 

It's not worth the effort, he is a supporter of the president, and you won't change his mind.

 

Loud and wrong.

 

Never a good combination.

[Doc]

Instead of "Birthers," we can now have "Bainers." You know, those who don't believe Romney left Bain in 1999.

[Juror#8]

Instead of "Birthers," we can now have "Bainers." You know, those who don't believe Romney left Bain in 1999.

 

Even the birthers couldn't say that they felt that the Prez was a liar. They felt that he was lying about his birth certificate, but not pointing to instances of equivocation, untruths, and similar disconnects to bolster their claim.

 

Mitt Romney is a liar. He has a history of lying, equivocation, skating on the margins, shifting to accommodate a certain moment, trend, or opportunity.

 

Just look up his whole Utah vs. Massachussets (where was his residency) with respect to the Mass gubernatorial race.

 

He said he filed in Mass. Turns out he filed in Utah and (allegedly) claimed to be resident there to reporters, and received a tax break in Utah ($55,000) and....

 

TO explain it, he says that he doesn't read what he signs (Utah tax docs), some bueracrat is responsible for the tax break and the reporter is lying.

 

There is always a story to explain or explain away schit with this fake fukker. He will say ANYTHING to take advantage of an opportunity. He's odious.

[Doc]

Even the birthers couldn't say that they felt that the Prez was a liar. They felt that he was lying about his birth certificate, but not pointing to instances of equivocation, untruths, and similar disconnects to bolster their claim.

 

Mitt Romney is a liar. He has a history of lying, equivocation, skating on the margins, shifting to accommodate a certain moment, trend, or opportunity.

 

Just look up his whole Utah vs. Massachussets (where was his residency) with respect to the Mass gubernatorial race.

 

He said he filed in Mass. Turns out he filed in Utah and (allegedly) claimed to be resident there to reporters, and received a tax break in Utah ($55,000) and....

 

TO explain it, he says that he doesn't read what he signs (Utah tax docs), some bueracrat is responsible for the tax break and the reporter is lying.

 

There is always a story to explain or explain away schit with this fake fukker. He will say ANYTHING to take advantage of an opportunity. He's odious.

You're kidding, right? You've heard the saying "once a liar, always a liar?"

 

The truth is the majority of politicians lie, flip-flop, are fake and are out for themselves first. Barry is no exception, but he's worse because he'll lie to your face and tell you he's not like other politicians, when he's just as bad, if not worse. Romney isn't innocent of this. The difference between him and Barry is he's actually worked in the real world and been successful. Barry hasn't and the country being in the state it's in is a reflection of his lack of competency. By his own admission, he should be a one-term president, but he's flip-flopped on even that, continuing to blame everyone else but himself. He has to go.

[Adam]

You're kidding, right? You've heard the saying "once a liar, always a liar?"

 

The truth is the majority of politicians lie, flip-flop, are fake and are out for themselves first. Barry is no exception, but he's worse because he'll lie to your face and tell you he's not like other politicians, when he's just as bad, if not worse. Romney isn't innocent of this. The difference between him and Barry is he's actually worked in the real world and been successful. Barry hasn't and the country being in the state it's in is a reflection of his lack of competency. By his own admission, he should be a one-term president, but he's flip-flopped on even that, continuing to blame everyone else but himself. He has to go.

Wrong. We are where we are, because politician pander to the 24-hour news cycle and to the lowest common denominator, which is growing into a majority. The fact is that we are running the country into the ground on a document which is over 200 years old and written by people who probably were gone before the first modern automobile, tells all we need to know.

 

We continually laud these founding fathers, but don't want to think like they did.

[3rdnlng]

Wrong. We are where we are, because politician pander to the 24-hour news cycle and to the lowest common denominator, which is growing into a majority. The fact is that we are running the country into the ground on a document which is over 200 years old and written by people who probably were gone before the first modern automobile, tells all we need to know.

 

We continually laud these founding fathers, but don't want to think like they did.

 

Ya think? You even equivicate over something as obvious as this? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I'm positive that they were gone before the first modern automobile. There, I said it.

[ieatcrayonz]

I am too busy to read this thread but am wondering if it relates to OCD members of the spandex mafia being worried that they might catch a disease from their ride. Geez some people will spend money on anything.

[Adam]

Ya think? You even equivicate over something as obvious as this? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I'm positive that they were gone before the first modern automobile. There, I said it.

Sorry (no, not really, I am just prefacing my statement with that), I have a life and a job and didn't feel I needed to actually look that up. No go back to you own mindless and lugubrious equivocating.

[3rdnlng]

Sorry (no, not really, I am just prefacing my statement with that), I have a life and a job and didn't feel I needed to actually look that up. No go back to you own mindless and lugubrious equivocating.

 

You actually need to look up the fact that the people that wrote our constitution probably were gone by the time the first modern automobile appeared?

Edited August 2, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[ieatcrayonz]

Sorry (no, not really, I am just prefacing my statement with that), I have a life and a job and didn't feel I needed to actually look that up. No go back to you own mindless and lugubrious equivocating.

Don't worry about the crap these guys spew. One time I said I was pretty sure that none of the Pony Express guys had GPS systems to tell them where they were and I got laughed at.

 

Technically though I think he is right. None of the founding fathers had a car when they were working on the constitution. I also remember hearing the story that when they were getting it ready for release they really pissed off the guys at Kinko's who had to hand collate all that stuff in a big rush. I don't think Xerox released the auto-collate feature until around 1802 or thereabouts.

[Adam]

automobile

 

You actualy need to look up the fact that the people that wrote our constitution probably were gone by the time the first modern automobile appeared?

Not really- I was focusing on something more important at work, and that detail slipped by. I usually let that go by, as I am not sitting around and doing nothing all the time........

 

Don't worry about the crap these guys spew. One time I said I was pretty sure that none of the Pony Express guys had GPS systems to tell them where they were and I got laughed at.

 

Technically though I think he is right. None of the founding fathers had a car when they were working on the constitution. I also remember hearing the story that when they were getting it ready for release they really pissed off the guys at Kinko's who had to hand collate all that stuff in a big rush. I don't think Xerox released the auto-collate feature until around 1802 or thereabouts.

LOL, that cracked me up!