You've posted nothing that disproves anything we've posted. I say Romney has a 51% controlling interest in Bain and you say he doesn't. You cannot prove he doesn't and are unwilling to accept the sources I trust that say he does. I accept that we have a difference of opinion about the facts but I do not accept that you not being able to prove Romney doesn't have a 51% share in Bain makes YOU right and me a liar. If you have a credible source stating that Romney doesn't have a 51% share in Bain, I'd believe you but you don't. You don't have to believe me either but neither of us automatically gets to hold the mantle of truth unless proof can be posted that supports their claim. Again, you haven't satisfied that expectation by any stretch of the imagination.
Rlm I have no reason to smear his name . I'm just using something you brought up for information . Really all I'm interested in is if he still has or had power to prevent those jobs from leaving the US . And please I asked the question myself , I write for myself . Now if you consider me asking a question as smearing someone I'll drop it now until I find something that will clarify or answer the question .
Sorry, but these are not questions. They are unsupported smears and nothing more until you have some supporting documentation;
Well sorry you take them that way , though it really wasn' t my intention except for my 1st post when I thought it was fact . Then the rest were mostly questions on my part and an observation about a blind trust in his wives name brought up by you .
No facts so you resort to the insults - AGAIN. Have you noticed just how many posters here are throwing insults?
I can't provide "facts" from your parallel universe. I don't live in it. AGAIN - It is not an insult when it it true. It is merely an objective fact in this universe DICK!
More insults and still no facts. I am beginning to think you are just jealous because he sticks to his morals. Don't you wish you did/could.
Jealous? You have to be kidding. As far as Romney sticking to his morals goes, since when has he ever done that? First he was pro-choice then he was anti-abortion. Then he was for mandated health care then he was against it. Then he was going to be more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy then he was against marriage equality. On all these moral issues he has been on both sides of the issue. Oh, I forgot, he sticks to his morals in your universe not this one. Gotch ya!
You really can't talk about morals & BO in the same breath. Didn't he flip-flop on the gay marriage thing? As far as abortion, I respect Romney more for realizing murder is wrong far more than someone like BO who is an advocate of not just killing babies but killing babies outside the womb.
Fortunately, Romney will never be heard from again. His flip-flopping based on the latest poll is not leadership. It's leading by current opinion which is always fluid but never consistent. Anyone can be lead by conducting polls they just can't lead effectively. You should learn the difference.
You really can't talk about morals & BO in the same breath. Didn't he flip-flop on the gay marriage thing? As far as abortion, I respect Romney more for realizing murder is wrong far more than someone like BO who is an advocate of not just killing babies but killing babies outside the womb. Could you show your facts that Obama supports killing babies outside the womb . That would be considered murder in all 50 states .
You really aren't familiar with that part of his legislative history? Really? I guess the mainstream media has been successful in shielding the masses from what BO really believes in, huh? It's probably too late now since you've cast your vote but take the time to research BO's opinions & votes on how to deal with babies born alive after a botched abortion procedure. Any compassionate or sane person would be disgusted.
After hearing that , it nowhere has Obama arguing that it is right to murder those children born outside the womb , his arguement was that he thought the 1st doctor would then do the right thing and help the baby survive and not have to bring in a second doctor to determine those facts . I see nowhere where he advocated killing babies that could survive outside the womb .
Yes I would be disgusted if he advocated killing babies that survived outside the womb , but I'm afraid that's not what he was supporting . The law was if a 2nd doctor was needed to be able to acertain the facts . You have shown me nothing that shows he supports murder .
So, what is "the right thing" in this scenario? The 1st doctor, afterall, was trying to snuff out the life of a baby
