- #596
apeiron
Gold Member
- 2,138
- 2
mheslep said:Actually I am saying what I said.
So what is your point exactly?
mheslep said:Actually I am saying what I said.
Office_Shredder said:He's saying that people make posts claiming to speak on behalf of the entire planet
apeiron said:I'd call that supplying context to balance a personal opinion. But still not sure how that relates to AlephZero's reply then.
AlephZero said:The rest of the world tends to be interested in whether a potential US president actually knows where the rest of the world is.
Office_Shredder said:Alternative hypothesis: a lot of people don't care
apeiron I apologize for being so glib. To much politics. Yes, I mean that while one make an argument, with some work, that this or that might be relevant *should be* relevant to others besides ourselves, one can not also speak for others, much less the entire world.apeiron said:So what is your point exactly?
AlephZero said:Oh, please. Until this thread, I didn't even know he had anything to do with the Olympics. Tell me again what medals he won, I've forgotten.
Anyway, whatever he did must have been a failure, considering they are having to rerun the whole games again in London this year ...
mheslep said:Hobin, if I may:
Do you think it important to poll the American viewpoint when assessing PM Rutte? Or, say, UK or French or Russian opinion?
WhoWee said:I'm not certain if you've posted tongue-in-cheek or not? Mitt Romney didn't compete in the Olympics - he managed them in 2002.
"SALT LAKE CITY — Mitt Romney walked onto the Olympic stage in 1999 a rich businessman still smarting from losing his first bid for public office. He walked off, three years later, a star-polished candidate who would be elected governor of Massachusetts in a matter of months. This was the place of his emergence and his transition.
In rescuing the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games, which had been tarnished by scandal, Mr. Romney learned the ways of Washington and the hurly-burly of politics, mastered the news media, built a staff of loyalists and made fund-raising connections in Utah that have proven vital to his presidential campaign."
Romney: Olympic savior or opportunist?
In his book, he takes great pains to attribute the success of the Games to the team he and his predecessors at SLOC put together — from supportive federal officials in Washington, D.C., to a volunteer corps of 26,000 in the Beehive State. He acknowledged his responsibility was big — as the face of the Games, the herald of its values and the guarantor of a pledge to deliver the event on budget — but said that his high-exposure role was necessary to distinguish the new-and-improved SLOC from the old corrupt one.
Such high-minded pronouncements do not ring entirely true to two of Romney’s more vocal local critics, who argue he exaggerated SLOC’s problems to make himself look better when Salt Lake City’s Olympics rebounded.
Ken Bullock, who represented the Utah League of Cities and Towns on SLOC’s board, said “Romney was a great face for the Games. He deserves credit, just not all the credit he’s claiming.
“We did not have a crisis in hosting or managing the Olympics. It was a crisis of image, a crisis related to the IOC. That’s not to say he didn’t do a good job and play a vital role,” Bullock said. “But so did [bid leader] Tom Welch. Tom was a great visionary. He displayed the tenacity, convictions and passion to pursue it. He’s forgotten. And Frank Joklik? With his engineering background, he put the scaffolding together. Mitt did a nice job putting meat on the bones.”
Steve Pace, a studious skeptic whose scandal-inspired “Slalom and Gomorrah” T-shirt quickly caught Romney’s eye, conceded SLOC’s new leader “did an incredible job and built bridges.”
“But Mitt’s efforts here,” Pace said, “were more about Mitt than the greater glory of the Olympics or helping out Utah.”
Evo said:Or an oportunist that found a way to regain favor after losing the Senate race in Mass?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53441281-78/games-lake-mitt-olympic.html.csp?page=3
Astronuc said:I think it will be Mittens vs Obama in Nov.
WhoWee said:I'm not certain if you've posted tongue-in-cheek or not? Mitt Romney didn't compete in the Olympics - he managed them in 2002.
lisab said:I think so too. Had Santorum won Michigan there would be doubt in my mind about it, but now I think it will be Romney.
turbo said:I'm surprised that Mitt didn't get smashed in Michigan after his comments about letting the US auto-makers fail.
turbo said:
turbo said:
turbo said:Read this.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/romneys-underpants-gnome-defense-on-auto-bailout.php
“If they go through that managed bankruptcy and shed the excessive cost that’s been put on them by the UAW and by their own mismanagement, then if they need help coming out of bankruptcy, the government can provided guarantees and get them back on their feet,” he said. “No way would we allow the auto industry in America to totally implode and disappear. That was my view. Go through bankruptcy. When that happens, then the market can help lift them out.”
If the auto-makers had been forced into Chapter 11, Wall Street would have demanded to be made whole, and that would have forced the liquidation of GM and Chrysler, IMO, along with the loss of 1.5M jobs minimum. When the auto-makers were in their worst trouble, Wall Street wasn't loaning them any money. Chapter 11 wasn't an option. I think we all know that. The right-wing keeps harping on the fallacy that Obama gave billions to the UAW. In fact, the auto-makers ceded stock to the trust funds that pay retirement benefits to retired auto-workers. As the auto-makers seem to be roaring back from their low point in recent months, it is reasonable to expect that the managers of those trusts will re-capitalize by selling off some of that stock.
How is it that any other capital intensive company manages to go through Chapter 11, come out and keep operating? Why not apply those arguments to http://thepage.time.com/2011/11/29/american-airlines-files-for-bankruptcy/ (Wall street demands, liquidation, all jobs wiped out) and see how they hold up? Does American still have 600 some planes in the air every day?turbo said:...
If the auto-makers had been forced into Chapter 11, Wall Street would have demanded to be made whole, and that would have forced the liquidation of GM and Chrysler, IMO, along with the loss of 1.5M jobs minimum. When the auto-makers were in their worst trouble, Wall Street wasn't loaning them any money. Chapter 11 wasn't an option. I think we all know that. The right-wing keeps harping on the fallacy that Obama gave billions to the UAW. In fact, the auto-makers ceded stock to the trust funds that pay retirement benefits to retired auto-workers.
Who would not appear to come roaring back if $80Billion was put on their books?As the auto-makers seem to be roaring back from their low point in recent months,...
When they have to put on extra shifts to meet the demand for vehicles, I believe that is convincing proof that they are in resurgence.mheslep said:Who would not appear to come roaring back if $80Billion was put on their books?
turbo said:When they have to put on extra shifts to meet the demand for vehicles, I believe that is convincing proof that they are in resurgence.
If these huge companies were allowed to fail (forced into Chapter 11) it would have impacted millions of people all over the country. Auto-companies have very long supply lines and very long lead-times before they receive materials and the suppliers are paid. Anybody who manufactures foams, fabrics, electronic components, and a zillion other things that Detroit needs would go catatonic if their biggest customer went into Chapter 11, because they would never know if they were going to get paid pennies on the dollar or anything at all. That means that all of their employees would be out on the street until things were resolved. Saving the auto-industry was the prudent thing to do, and I think the bail-out was structured with some semblance of fairness.
Ever heard the "we'll make it up on volume" joke? Moving a lot of cars is not the same as making money on a lot of cars, which GM can do now thanks to my tax dollars buying off their debt load and taxes.turbo said:When they have to put on extra shifts to meet the demand for vehicles, I believe that is convincing proof that they are in resurgence.
Office_Shredder said:People try to read too much into a 3 percent win in a single state. Romney's dad was freaking governor of Michigan for six years, how did he not destroy all comers there? Clearly he's not very popular, especially considering that Michigan isn't a state full of Santorum's brand of religious conservatives
WhoWee said:The Republican base doesn't have lukewarm support for Romney because he's too far Right - do they? IMO - they think he's too moderate - flipped back and forth on issues - much like the Independents.
IMO - this will help Mitt win the Independent and moderate Democrat vote in the fall - the Republicans will hold their nose and vote against President Obama regardless of the candidate.