Bullshit, that’s exactly what you’ve been doing in every political thread on this board for the last week or so, trashing Obama as uniquely horrible, and extolling the virtues of Romney’s qualifications, whatever it is that they may be.
Pot - kettle - black.
I have not. I’m not blaming you for getting that impression, but it’s just no what I’ve been saying. All I’ve done is point out that Obama has most of the same flaws Romney does. And since the subject of the thread did involve posting positive things about Romney, I did so. While still making it clear that I’m not a big fan. I’m just not casting a purely anti-Obama vote. Had the nominee been Rick Santorum, I would likely have supported the President’s reelection.
And in every other thread you’re posting in trashing Obama in almost every post? Same motivation?
If there’s something that needs to be said that isn’t being said, yes. But I do not think the PResident is uniquely bad and I acknowledge that there are good reasons to support him over Romney. I recognize the legitimacy of the other side’s arguments, do you?
I don’t believe I ever said or implied that it would be impossible for someone to legitimately support Romney and genuinely believe that he’d be better for the country.
Wherever did you get the idea that I don’t recognize the legitimacy of the other side’s arguments? Just because I disagree does not mean I’ve delegitimized the other side’s arguments. Obviously an argument can be both bad and legitimate at the same time.
If one had run, the Tea Party would have rejected him for spending too much on healthcare.
I’ll be charitable and just assume you know nothing about business. Here is the paragraph on Sports Authority from your link:
If a company is desperate for cash because it is losing money, then giving it money might be called contributing to a turnaround. If it is desperate for money because it is doing so well it needs more (typical of second rounds of venture funding) then it does not need to be turned around.
So your very cite disproves your contention.
Right. Sports Authority is not an example of a company which Bain “turned around”. It’s an example of a company in which Bain got in at the ground floor, and funded its aggressive expansion plans.
And, judging by the number of companies in on this investment, it seems like a no-brainer. This is a positive use of capital, but doesn’t show any management skill on Romney’s part.
That was such a spectacularly silly bit of hyperbole I searched for it on the internet to see what choices you might have and I see it is the presumptive Senator elect for your state. Judging from his Tea Party pedigree and some of his more interesting ideas ( eg. the UN is teaming with George Soros to eliminate golf courses in the US :eek: ) it should be a fun time in Washington next year.
Ok so we have 2 turnarounds: the Salt Lake City Olympics and Bain capital. Points to adaher for creativity with the latter, and I hope we can put the other nonexamples to rest. In both cases, Romney turned the situation around by locating a sugar daddy: the founder of Bain coughed up some dough for Bain Capital and lobbyists tapped federal largesse for the Winter Olympics.
The Bain link adaher provides is a puff-piece: it just quotes some of his former business partners and doesn’t bother tracking down any dissenting opinions. There’s a dearth of examples in the article.
I see from wikipedia that Romney was one of the initial partners at Bain Capital: the 1989 event was basically a reorganization. At that point they shifted from exclusively funding startups to focus on LBOs and growth capital investments. That’s a little different from buying distressed companies. Bain Capital didn’t compete much with private equity concerns like Versa Capital or Lone Star Funds as far as I know. Romney might have done some turnaround work as a consultant though: I’m not sure.