Stericycle

[jjamie12]

I understand your analogy but the difference is that Romney was financially benefitting off of something that he claimed to be morally against.

 

It seems to vindicate that segment who claim that he will say and do anything for money/esteem/status/his immediate benefit - despite what he believes to be inherently true.

 

That article was really just a horecrap. 2/3 of it was talking about safety violations that occurred prior to Bain taking over. The rest of it is trying to paint Romney as still pulling strings and running things when everyone, including Bain denies it. Is it really that hard to believe the Bain spokesman when they say that he retired from day to day operations in 1999, but remained as a signer until they negotiated his separation agreement? I mean is that really so far-fetched?

[B-Man]

My whole issue is about the judgment of someone who would invest is something of that nature that he claimed to be so philosophically antithetical towards.

 

He is facilitating a process that he claims to be against.

 

It just seems to clash in so many respects.

 

 

There is, of course, no end of examples of this behavior in the present administration,

 

perhaps your "Hamlet" threads would carry a little more believability, if we could see one that wasn't about Mitt.

 

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

Are you sold one way or the other?

I'm not happy about it, but I'd throw my body on a burning bag of Nancy Pelosi's thigh fat if I thought it would get Barack Obama out of the WH. I spend more time than I care in the company of small business owners, and no one is planning any growth of any significance until Obama is gone. The only business people who like him and his views are the ones who can profit off of him (i.e. Immelt, Buffett, etc.). Everyone else will continue to take profits and shove them in a mattress before opening themselves up to more regulations and taxes in the name of fairness.

 

The biggest problem I have is that while you can count of Romney to help fix the economy better than Obama, who has proven beyond ANY DOUBT he has no clue what he's doing, the reality is we'd only be reacting to today's biggest problem, and it sucks because we have a crapload of problems right now and I'm not sure how Romney intends to address them.

 

But Obama? Please. He has no idea what he's doing. None. The only reason I'm glad he's president is because McCain wouldn't have been much better, so I'm happy to progressives take it in the ass.

[Jauronimo]

I understand your analogy but the difference is that Romney was financially benefitting off of something that he claimed to be morally against.

 

It seems to vindicate that segment who claim that he will say and do anything for money/esteem/status/his immediate benefit - despite what he believes to be inherently true.

That's one interpretation. And if he doesn't believe abortion to be an affront to God then he's just another politician who takes a hard stance on an issue to appease a large contingent of his voter base. I don't find much distinction between compromising your own values for financial gain and doing the same for political gain. One may seem dirtier to you, but the latter strikes me as pretty filthy too.

 

I believe Mitt will say what he needs to say in order to get elected. I believe that of pretty much everyone else in D.C. as well. Except for Gingrich who says exactly what he needs to say in order to disqualify himself from his party's nomination. Sort of like cheating in golf by raising your score.

[Juror#8]

There is, of course, no end of examples of this behavior in the present administration,

 

perhaps your "Hamlet" threads would carry a little more believability, if we could see one that wasn't about Mitt.

 

 

.

 

Lol!

 

I know right, because I have an obligation to discuss things in a fashion that obliges the slant.

 

Thanks for that.

 

Discuss the politics or the merits or get the !@#$ out the thread. I've already acknowledged that I don't like the guy.

 

What does that have to do with an article that is substantiated by offical documents written by someone who is not me?

 

Leave the ad hominems elsewhere or just politely ignore the thread.

 

That article was really just a horecrap. 2/3 of it was talking about safety violations that occurred prior to Bain taking over. The rest of it is trying to paint Romney as still pulling strings and running things when everyone, including Bain denies it. Is it really that hard to believe the Bain spokesman when they say that he retired from day to day operations in 1999, but remained as a signer until they negotiated his separation agreement? I mean is that really so far-fetched?

 

I updated the first post with the article that discusses the issue in more detail.

[Adam]

Well, I guess you might want to consider holding your nose and voting for competence.

The question is, will competence help at this point? Gridlock in Congress will hamper any president from getting anything done. The space between the three branches has become cramped and is causing enmity between all of them. Nobody trusts anybody.

 

It would be political suicide, but the way to fix things is to reboot and revamp.

[Juror#8]

That's one interpretation. And if he doesn't believe abortion to be an affront to God then he's just another politician who takes a hard stance on an issue to appease a large contingent of his voter base. I don't find much distinction between compromising your own values for financial gain and doing the same for political gain. One may seem dirtier to you, but the latter strikes me as pretty filthy too.

 

I believe Mitt will say what he needs to say in order to get elected. I believe that of pretty much everyone else in D.C. as well. Except for Gingrich who says exactly what he needs to say in order to disqualify himself from his party's nomination. Sort of like cheating in golf by raising your score.

 

I don't care who you are, that ****'s funny.

[B-Man]

Lol!

 

I know right, because I have an obligation to discuss things in a fashion that obliges the slant.

 

Thanks for that.

 

Discuss the politics or the merits or get the !@#$ out the thread. I've already acknowledged that I don't like the guy.

 

What does that have to do with an article that is substantiated by offical documents written by someone who is not me?

 

Leave the ad hominems elsewhere or just politely ignore the thread.

 

 

 

What a hoot you are.

 

How can I go on knowing that I'm not following the "thread rules"..........................

 

 

 

 

Look, if you're going to play the fool, all I ask is that you start lamenting about how hard it is for you to support President Obama and post a "substantiated" article critical of him also

 

Equal time.

 

 

.

[jjamie12]

Lol!

 

I know right, because I have an obligation to discuss things in a fashion that obliges the slant.

 

Thanks for that.

 

Discuss the politics or the merits or get the !@#$ out the thread. I've already acknowledged that I don't like the guy.

 

What does that have to do with an article that is substantiated by offical documents written by someone who is not me?

 

Leave the ad hominems elsewhere or just politely ignore the thread.

 

 

 

I updated the first post with the article that discusses the issue in more detail.

 

I'm referring to the Mother Jones piece in the first post. Even that piece stops short of saying that Romney had anything to do with it. The author uses all sorts of innuendo to put his spin on it, but only concludes that this "may lead to questions" about the end of Romney's time at Bain.

 

Again. Is it really that far-fetched of an idea that Romney needed to remain a signatory on certain deals between the time of his resigning operational contril in '99 and them signing their separation agreement in '02? Is that really so-far-out-there impossible?

[Juror#8]

There is, of course, no end of examples of this behavior in the present administration,

 

perhaps your "Hamlet" threads would carry a little more believability, if we could see one that wasn't about Mitt.

 

 

.

 

2. Look around at posts I've started - I've started threads critical of Obama and the administration (admittedly only 2). And besides saying the man is personally a nice guy, my general consensus (documented for your reading pleasure) is that he is a guy unprepared and unready for the realities of the economy and the domestic disharmony.

 

What's your balance record?

 

You've posted a lot of copyright-infringed articles unoriginally co-opting everyone's opinion who may have a gripe against this administration.

 

So you know what, perhaps your "Hamlet" threads would carry a little more believability, if we could see one that wasn't about Obama.

 

But noooooo....that would be asking you to practice what you preach which fundamentally goes against your political agenda here.

 

What a hoot you are.

 

How can I go on knowing that I'm not following the "thread rules"..........................

 

 

 

 

Look, if you're going to play the fool, all I ask is that you start lamenting about how hard it is for you to support President Obama and post a "substantiated" article critical of him also

 

Equal time.

 

 

.

 

See post 30 above.

 

 

I'm referring to the Mother Jones piece in the first post. Even that piece stops short of saying that Romney had anything to do with it. The author uses all sorts of innuendo to put his spin on it, but only concludes that this "may lead to questions" about the end of Romney's time at Bain.

 

Again. Is it really that far-fetched of an idea that Romney needed to remain a signatory on certain deals between the time of his resigning operational contril in '99 and them signing their separation agreement in '02? Is that really so-far-out-there impossible?

 

Ok, let's get on the same page.

 

I just updated the first page to contain the MotherJones piece. The first time I linked to the Salon piece in the original thread. Check out the updated link replacement.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Juror#8

[DC Tom]

I guess the more pertinent article with respect to the details is the 'MotherJones' article.

 

If you don't mind me asking, why won't you address the issue of his financial investment vis-a-vis his moral objections.

 

I'm not being pushy and if you don't want to discuss, I understand.

 

Because it's yet another one of your "gotcha" topics, where you ask the leading "what do you think?" question trying to trap the Romney supporters into either justify his inconsistency or admitting he's a hypocrite, either way proving they're hypocrites. At which point you get to claim to be the better man.

 

And it's beyond boring. It's useless and stupid. Politicians aren't hypocritical on their own. POLITICS is hypocritical. Obama didn't close Gitmo, Bush engaged in nation building, a slew of "champions of the borrower" in Congress complaining about lending deregulation who took sweetheart deals from Countrywide. You want to complain about hypocrisy, stop being an ass and complain about the political system we created that generates it. Complaining about the hypocrisy of the individuals who participate in that system is itself hypocritical.

[Doc]

My whole issue is about the judgment of someone who would invest is something of that nature that he claimed to be so philosophically antithetical towards.

 

He is facilitating a process that he claims to be against.

 

It just seems to clash in so many respects.

"Facilitating a process?" Was their slogan "Hey, we've made fetus disposal safer and more efficient. Have more abortions!"?

 

Or was Romney against the disposal of fetuses?

[jjamie12]

2. Look around at posts I've started - I've started threads critical of Obama and the administration (admittedly only 2). And besides saying the man is personally a nice guy, my general consensus (documented for your reading pleasure) is that he is a guy unprepared and unready for the realities of the economy and the domestic disharmony.

 

What's your balance record?

 

You've posted a lot of copyright-infringed articles unoriginally co-opting everyone's opinion who may have a gripe against this administration.

 

So you know what, perhaps your "Hamlet" threads would carry a little more believability, if we could see one that wasn't about Obama.

 

But noooooo....that would be asking you to practice what you preach which fundamentally goes against your political agenda here.

 

 

 

See post 30 above.

 

 

 

 

Ok, let's get on the same page.

 

I just updated the first page to contain the MotherJones piece. The first time I linked to the Salon piece in the original thread. Check out the updated link replacement.

It's possible I'm a moron (and please let me know where I've gone wrong if I'm being obtuse), but I've been referencing the Mother Jones piece by David Corn dated 7/2/12, which is the first link in the first post of this thread. Should I be looking somewhere else?

 

Edit: Now I've read a piece by David Corn on 7/3/12 (linked through from the original piece) that is really just a re-hash of what he's already stated. Several 'fact-checker' sites have basically said "David, you're wrong", as he admits in the article. Except he keeps the argument going by citing 'newspaper reports from the Boston Globe that say MR is 'taking a leave of absence' rather than resigning (as if newspaper accounts are never wrong).

 

Either way, I'll pose the question again: Is it really so unreasonable to assume that Mitt Romney remained as a signer to certain documents from the time he 'resigned' in '99 until his separation agreement was negotiated and executed in '02, as has been claimed repeatedly by Bain and the Romney campaign? Is that really so hard to believe?

Edited July 5, 2012 by jjamie12

[Juror#8]

Because it's yet another one of your "gotcha" topics, where you ask the leading "what do you think?" question trying to trap the Romney supporters into either justify his inconsistency or admitting he's a hypocrite, either way proving they're hypocrites. At which point you get to claim to be the better man.

 

No, really I'm not.

 

It's weird how you think you can psychoanalyze a poster and their intentions. I said from the beginning that I don't like the man so let's discuss the politics of it.

 

I haven't browbeat anyone for their opinions on the topic and haven't endeavored to back anyone into a corner for their opinion (with respect to this topic). 3rd gave a very concise "they both suck" answer and I very graciously agreed. Someone mentioned that dispassionate financial decisions should trump a emotionl ones and I accept that without argument.

 

You're not holier than anything and your attempts to paint people with a broad brush is dry. Your schtick is old.

 

Do me a favor, just don't reply to my threads. You add nothing. Reading your pathetic attempts to psychologically define folks while you insult in the most infantile of ways in order to substitute for your lack of substantive contribution is old, and dry.

 

I can say that your 30,000 posts on a message board, and "trademarking" of phrases endemic to prepubescent teens who can't curse without risking in-school suspension, evidences some weird existential dilemma that long ago culminated in Napoleonic megalomania.

 

That would accurately characterize you. But I've been civil with you. And just kept that little truism about you close to the vest.

 

So how about this, you can easily avoid my "gotcha" stuff by IGNORING me. Please. You would be doing me a favor. *Since I know that you don't want to do that, I'll say that that would make me really upset if you were to ignore me.* Then I wouldn't have to restrain myself from replying to your ignorant ass with the level of incivility that your posts merit.

 

Go away. Be gone. Thanks.

 

There are 30-something other regular contributors on this board. You can spend your free time augmenting your 'poster of the decade' status by replying to any one of them.

 

And it's beyond boring. It's useless and stupid. Politicians aren't hypocritical on their own. POLITICS is hypocritical. Obama didn't close Gitmo, Bush engaged in nation building, a slew of "champions of the borrower" in Congress complaining about lending deregulation who took sweetheart deals from Countrywide. You want to complain about hypocrisy, stop being an ass and complain about the political system we created that generates it. Complaining about the hypocrisy of the individuals who participate in that system is itself hypocritical.

 

Funny thing is, if your first paragraph was based on your second paragraph, you're wrong on the facts.

 

I've called Obama, his administration and politics in general a hypocritical joke. I have a thread a few month back related to his (and the left's) hypocrisy.

 

Don't let that get in your way though. That would disrupt your otherwise perfectly good hypothesis.

 

Keep fellating Romney under the auspices that you're dispassionately searching for truth and are unbiased to the T.

 

You're the worst of all.

 

Ignore me. I'll just respond to your posts addressed to me in that way to help you get the message. Your comments to me, and this response, should just about close any open lines of communication between us nicely. I don't want to waste the boards time with any more of this silly back-and-forth ****.

 

Now that amateur hour is over...

Edited July 5, 2012 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

It's possible I'm a moron (and please let me know where I've gone wrong if I'm being obtuse), but I've been referencing the Mother Jones piece by David Corn dated 7/2/12, which is the first link in the first post of this thread. Should I be looking somewhere else?

 

Edit: Now I've read a piece by David Corn on 7/3/12 (linked through from the original piece) that is really just a re-hash of what he's already stated. Several 'fact-checker' sites have basically said "David, you're wrong", as he admits in the article. Except he keeps the argument going by citing 'newspaper reports from the Boston Globe that say MR is 'taking a leave of absence' rather than resigning (as if newspaper accounts are never wrong).

 

Either way, I'll pose the question again: Is it really so unreasonable to assume that Mitt Romney remained as a signer to certain documents from the time he 'resigned' in '99 until his separation agreement was negotiated and executed in '02, as has been claimed repeatedly by Bain and the Romney campaign? Is that really so hard to believe?

 

Is that their argument? I didn't think that it was. When do you consider Romney's date certain for leaving Bain?

[DC Tom]

Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. I was under the impression you wanted to discuss Stericycle...when actually you wanted to discuss Romney's hypocrisy. And then, when I refused to be baited, you get all pissy taking some proclaimed "high road" where I'm interfering with your intelligent discussion?

 

Yeah, I certainly got you pegged wrong.

[Jauronimo]

I apologize if this has been discussed, but I haven't seen anything covering what just what type of vehicle the Stericycle was? I'm picturing a guy, possibly a mime, on unicycle with a sac full of fetuses and roadkill, but I know Romney has been very outspoken on the topic of mimes, so I have no idea.

[jjamie12]

Is that their argument? I didn't think that it was. When do you consider Romney's date certain for leaving Bain?

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."

 

I have no reason to believe that Bain is 'lying' about this, so I consider Romney's ex-Bain date to be February of '99. Do you really find it so hard to believe that?

[3rdnlng]

No, really I'm not.

 

It's weird how you think you can psychoanalyze a poster and their intentions. I said from the beginning that I don't like the man so let's discuss the politics of it.

 

I haven't browbeat anyone for their opinions on the topic and haven't endeavored to back anyone into a corner for their opinion (with respect to this topic). 3rd gave a very concise "they both suck" answer and I very graciously agreed. Someone mentioned that dispassionate financial decisions should trump a emotionl ones and I accept that without argument.

 

You're not holier than anything and your attempts to paint people with a broad brush is dry. Your schtick is old.

 

Do me a favor, just don't reply to my threads. You add nothing. Reading your pathetic attempts to psychologically define folks while you insult in the most infantile of ways in order to substitute for your lack of substantive contribution is old, and dry.

 

I can say that your 30,000 posts on a message board, and "trademarking" of phrases endemic to prepubescent teens who can't curse without risking in-school suspension, evidences some weird existential dilemma that long ago culminated in Napoleonic megalomania.

 

That would accurately characterize you. But I've been civil with you. And just kept that little truism about you close to the vest.

 

So how about this, you can easily avoid my "gotcha" stuff by IGNORING me. Please. You would be doing me a favor. *Since I know that you don't want to do that, I'll say that that would make me really upset if you were to ignore me.* Then I wouldn't have to restrain myself from replying to your ignorant ass with the level of incivility that your posts merit.

 

Go away. Be gone. Thanks.

 

There are 30-something other regular contributors on this board. You can spend your free time augmenting your 'poster of the decade' status by replying to any one of them.

 

 

 

Funny thing is, if your first paragraph was based on your second paragraph, you're wrong on the facts.

 

I've called Obama, his administration and politics in general a hypocritical joke. I have a thread a few month back related to his (and the left's) hypocrisy.

 

Don't let that get in your way though. That would disrupt your otherwise perfectly good hypothesis.

 

Keep fellating Romney under the auspices that you're dispassionately searching for truth and are unbiased to the T.

 

You're the worst of all.

 

Ignore me. I'll just respond to your posts addressed to me in that way to help you get the message. Your comments to me, and this response, should just about close any open lines of communication between us nicely. I don't want to waste the boards time with any more of this silly back-and-forth ****.

 

Now that amateur hour is over...

 

 

Just to make it clear, I don't think Romney sucks. I was referring to the way I believed you thought, and if it was a choice between an incompetent pos vs. a competent pos, there really was no question about who to vote for.

 

Romney has always said he was personally against abortion but felt it wasn't his job to tell other people what to do. I don't believe Stericycle was dealing with fetuses when Bain first invested, but what difference would it make? If there were going to be fetuses anyway, don't you think they should be disposed of properly? Also, I'm not so sure how much Romney has really changed his position on abortion. He's always been against it personally and used to say it was a personal decision for others. Is he vowing to change Roe vs. Wade? If not, this is just a useless subject and if more widespread than PPP would be taking away from the real issues in the campaign.

[Rob's House]

My whole issue is about the judgment of someone who would invest is something of that nature that he claimed to be so philosophically antithetical towards.

 

He is facilitating a process that he claims to be against.

 

It just seems to clash in so many respects.

You make a good point, but it doesn't change anything for me.. Despite finding abortion to be a disgusting practice, this won't affect my vote because 1. He's running against Obama, 2. I don't expect much from govt on the issue, & 3. I never took Romney for a true believer anyway.