Bain Capital Owns Clear Channel (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Etc.)

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Aug 23, 2012 7:07 AM GMT
    Bain Capital Owns Clear Channel (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Etc.)


    http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/bain-capital-owns-clear-channel-rush-limbaugh-sean-hannity-glenn-beck-michael-savage-etc
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 11:48 AM GMT
    Well Ill be go to hell!.. LMAO
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 4:16 PM GMT
    LMAO !!!!! This should be made a topic in the Political advertising against Romney. I'd love to hear his response to this bit of news.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 5:24 PM GMT
    LMAO! More fodder to divert attention away from the failed policies of the Obama Administration. This just shows more of the left's complete lack of understanding of how the private equity market works. Too bad they didn't bankrupt it and fire all the workers like the liberal media would have you believe is the goal behind every private equity transaction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 5:54 PM GMT
    BornJuly4th saidLMAO! More fodder to divert attention away from the failed policies of the Obama Administration. This just shows more of the left's complete lack of understanding of how the private equity market works. Too bad they didn't bankrupt it and fire all the workers like the liberal media would have you believe is the goal behind every private equity transaction.





    Yes, by all means, lets do have a conversation about the Party of no's efforts to see to it that any and all of Obama's Policies failed to ensure that their Primary goal of "MAKING OBAMA A ONE TERM PRESIDENT" came true.


    Then please tell us what link there may be to any of the lefts misunderstanding of "how the private equity market works", with ROMNEY'S OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST regarding his income from Bains share in the far right media which advertises for Romney.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 7:03 PM GMT
    realifedad said
    BornJuly4th saidLMAO! More fodder to divert attention away from the failed policies of the Obama Administration. This just shows more of the left's complete lack of understanding of how the private equity market works. Too bad they didn't bankrupt it and fire all the workers like the liberal media would have you believe is the goal behind every private equity transaction.





    Yes, by all means, lets do have a conversation about the Party of no's efforts to see to it that any and all of Obama's Policies failed to ensure that their Primary goal of "MAKING OBAMA A ONE TERM PRESIDENT" came true.


    Then please tell us what link there may be to any of the lefts misunderstanding of "how the private equity market works", with ROMNEY'S OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST regarding his income from Bains share in the far right media which advertises for Romney.


    I'll remind you that Obama enjoyed the first two years of his term with control of BOTH houses of Congress. The fact that he could do nothing to improve the economy shows that not even the Democrats were willing to support his mismanagement of the economic situation (when both Reagan and Clinton faced the opposite yet still managed to put in place policies that made dramatic economic improvements during the second half of their first terms). This guy has been completely incompetent when it comes to matters of the economy and the ways of Washington, instead implementing policies that no one (including a majority of the American people) thought should be a priority when the economy was the biggest threat.

    And if you had ANY knowledge of how Romney's exit from Bain occurred and how the BLIND TRUST works that has managed his investments over the last several years, you would have realized how stupid your second statement was. Let alone disregarding the fact that Bain is not the ONLY owner of Clear Channel. Thomas H. Lee Partners partnered with Bain when they took Clear Channel private in 2008, and wouldn't idly sit by if their investment were used by Romney to advance his Presidential campaign. Bain and THL are working to improve the yield on their investment, and your paranoia about "conflicts of interest" show just how desperate the left is in the face of an unpopular president and an American people who feel they are worse off than they were four years ago.

    (Edit from my original post: The announcement of Clear Channel's going private was made in November 2006, well before Obama was elected President or anyone even thought he had a chance of taking over the White House. The transaction was approved by CC's shareholders in 2007, and closed in 2008, still before the November elections that put this idiot into office)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 7:24 PM GMT
    Mr. 'I'm So Patriotic I was even born on the RIGHT day of the year' says

    "And if you had ANY knowledge of how Romney's exit from Bain occurred and how the BLIND TRUST works that has managed his investments over the last several years, you would have realized how stupid your second statement was."


    Remember Mitt's Immortal Words:

    "THE BLIND TRUST is an age old ruse, if you will.......which is to say.

    you can always tell a blind trust what it can and can not do.

    YOU GIVE A BLIND TRUST RULES!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 7:26 PM GMT
    I'll remind you that Obama enjoyed the first two years of his term with control of BOTH houses of Congress. The fact that he could do nothing to improve the economy shows that not even the Democrats were willing to support his mismanagement of the economic situation (when both Reagan and Clinton faced the opposite yet still managed to put in place policies that made dramatic economic improvements during the second half of their first terms). This guy has been completely incompetent when it comes to matters of the economy and the ways of Washington, instead implementing policies that no one (including a majority of the American people) thought should be a priority when the economy was the biggest threat.



    The simple and very truthfull answer is that Obama's jobs record was better in one year than the Bush record over a period of 8 years. Obama was handed by Bush the worst US economic situation since the great depression.


    Here's some facts about Democratic versus Republican records

    DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS--------
    1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003
    2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
    3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs -- Republicans 36,440,000.
    4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,000--Republicans 856,000. WOW
    5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
    6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months. WOW.
    ------------------Each “significant” one was under a R president-------------------------
    7.DOW—1928 to 2003—Stock market gained 11% average per year under D presidents versus 2% under R presidents. Small Cap stocks gained 18% as yearly average under D and minus 3% under R
    WOW.
    8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats. WOW
    9.Income Growth—1948-2005--each increased (percentage wise)under D presidents over R presidents by these numbers-- Quintiles--(Top-10%)--(2nd-71%)-(third-127%)-(fourth-212%)-(fifth-550%) WOW

    source--TimothyNoah-- Nov. 2010 in Slate magazine
    Question—Why would a working person vote for a Republican for President?




    I concede that your explaination regarding Bain Capitol does indeed make sense but I was guilty of ignorance on the subject not being stupid. LOL

    Now beyond that, why would you vote Republican in light of the above facts and all that is being pointed out here on RJ that the Republican Christian Fundi's and TBagger 'PARTNERS' are pushing on that Party ? Aren't you in the least concerned about these bible thumpers influence on the repubs swing dangerously to the right ?

    That swing means that if you vote Republican you are partnering with forces that are hell bent on doing harm to you as a gay man, to the elderly, the disabled, the poor and many a minority of Latino background all in the name of their version of 'god' and bringing their country 'back to that god', back from their boogyment, fascists, socialists, islam, the UN and sheria law. LOL. These people you as a gay man voting republican are partnering with, are also hell bent on taking money from the above lower income groups to pay for more money being pushed the way of the Wealthy, whom by the way did not create jobs as Bush promised, or his 8 year record of job creation wouldn't have been so pathetic

    As I've written many a time, we will come far closer to losing freedoms under the Christian Fundi backed Republicans than ever will happen under the supposed 'leftists'.


    Consider the above before pushing republicans
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 7:46 PM GMT
    Balancing saidMr. 'I'm So Patriotic I was even born on the RIGHT day of the year' says

    "And if you had ANY knowledge of how Romney's exit from Bain occurred and how the BLIND TRUST works that has managed his investments over the last several years, you would have realized how stupid your second statement was."


    Remember Mitt's Immortal Words:

    "THE BLIND TRUST is an age old ruse, if you will.......which is to say.

    you can always tell a blind trust what it can and can not do.

    YOU GIVE A BLIND TRUST RULES!"


    You clearly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about about. Romney hasn't managed Bain since he left it to take over the Olympics. The Clear Channel privatization occurred AFTER he left.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 8:15 PM GMT
    realifedad saidI'll remind you that Obama enjoyed the first two years of his term with control of BOTH houses of Congress. The fact that he could do nothing to improve the economy shows that not even the Democrats were willing to support his mismanagement of the economic situation (when both Reagan and Clinton faced the opposite yet still managed to put in place policies that made dramatic economic improvements during the second half of their first terms). This guy has been completely incompetent when it comes to matters of the economy and the ways of Washington, instead implementing policies that no one (including a majority of the American people) thought should be a priority when the economy was the biggest threat.



    The simple and very truthfull answer is that Obama's jobs record was better in one year than the Bush record over a period of 8 years. Obama was handed by Bush the worst US economic situation since the great depression.


    Here's some facts about Democratic versus Republican records

    DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS--------
    1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003
    2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
    3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs -- Republicans 36,440,000.
    4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,000--Republicans 856,000. WOW
    5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
    6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months. WOW.
    ------------------Each “significant” one was under a R president-------------------------
    7.DOW—1928 to 2003—Stock market gained 11% average per year under D presidents versus 2% under R presidents. Small Cap stocks gained 18% as yearly average under D and minus 3% under R
    WOW.
    8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats. WOW
    9.Income Growth—1948-2005--each increased (percentage wise)under D presidents over R presidents by these numbers-- Quintiles--(Top-10%)--(2nd-71%)-(third-127%)-(fourth-212%)-(fifth-550%) WOW

    source--TimothyNoah-- Nov. 2010 in Slate magazine
    Question—Why would a working person vote for a Republican for President?




    I concede that your explaination regarding Bain Capitol does indeed make sense but I was guilty of ignorance on the subject not being stupid. LOL

    Now beyond that, why would you vote Republican in light of the above facts and all that is being pointed out here on RJ that the Republican Christian Fundi's and TBagger 'PARTNERS' are pushing on that Party ? Aren't you in the least concerned about these bible thumpers influence on the repubs swing dangerously to the right ?

    That swing means that if you vote Republican you are partnering with forces that are hell bent on doing harm to you as a gay man, to the elderly, the disabled, the poor and many a minority of Latino background all in the name of their version of 'god' and bringing their country 'back to that god', back from their boogyment, fascists, socialists, islam, the UN and sheria law. LOL. These people you as a gay man voting republican are partnering with, are also hell bent on taking money from the above lower income groups to pay for more money being pushed the way of the Wealthy, whom by the way did not create jobs as Bush promised, or his 8 year record of job creation wouldn't have been so pathetic

    As I've written many a time, we will come far closer to losing freedoms under the Christian Fundi backed Republicans than ever will happen under the supposed 'leftists'.


    Consider the above before pushing republicans


    I appreciate that you've taken a more debate-like tact to this discussion, and I apologize for calling your earlier statement about Bain stupid.

    I can neither confirm nor deny the figures you have noted above. But my background in economics (it was one of my majors) tells me that there is a lagging effect to the implementation of economic policy and the noticeable effect on economic conditions, so it's difficult to say whether the economic conditions were due to the Administration in office or the one prior to it.

    Let's take a look at more recent history, as my desire to debate back to 1921 is negligible. People have argued for years that it was the pro-business and tax reduction policies of the Reagan and Bush Sr. Administrations that gave Clinton the runway to have such enormous economic growth in the latter part of his first term and for most of his second. It also shouldn't come of news to anyone that the economy was ALREADY headed into recession when George W took office, as we were seeing weakening GDP figures and other statistics that showed the economy to be slowing. W's efforts to reduce taxes across all classes was in an effort to stimulate the economy by putting money back into the hands of consumers, particularly because the U.S. government was running a surplus. We had begun to see improvement in the economy before the world was upturned by the events of September 11th.

    Now, I can already hear the argument that what I have said above can be used to argue that the economic malaise we find ourselves in cannot be blamed on Obama, because, as you've said, he inherited a mess. My problem with Obama is that instead of focusing his efforts on fixing the economy by working with Republicans and business leaders in the U.S. to find ways to put Americans back to work. The only economic policy he had was that of "stimulus", which most economist would argue are only short-term solutions with none of the long-term impact that will encourage businesses to hire more workers. Instead he focused on Obamacare, a monumental project that did not carry the support of the American people (I do not recall the figures, but I know that well less than 50% of the population wanted him to mess with healthcare when the economy was in such tatters). He forged ahead regardless, serving to undermine further the business confidence that we needed to get companies hiring again. They couldn't understand the impact that Obamacare would have on their bottom lines, so it pulled them further into retreat.

    The second focus of Obama's Administration has been regulation, imposing upon the financial sector the Dodd-Frank bill, the impacts of which most financial institutions STILL don't understand. This served to further weaken the financial sector which needed stability in order to pull us out of the recession. We needed banks to lend to businesses, but instead they pulled back as a result of the uncertainty surrounding Dodd-Frank.

    You may recall that it was Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagal, regulatory policy that had been put in place after the Great Depression to avoid much of the mess that resulted in the financial meltdown and created these banks that were too big to fail. And it was Barney Frank himself who scoffed at Republican attempts to pull back the reins on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose lending policies had become so lax that they set the groundwork for the housing bubble.

    We needed Obama to open his arms to the business community and ask its leaders what he and the Democratic-controlled Congress could do to get them to hire again. Instead, he enacted business-busting policies and demonized those on Wall Street and big business in general. He's proven himself completely inept at managing the economy or dealing with Washington.

    So for the sake of ALL of us, I'm voting for Romney in November. I disagree with many of the social policies of the Republican party, but the risk of anything that could get enacted without a super-majority in Congress pales in comparison to the damage that Obama could continue to do to the economy. Our ability to marry won't matter if we can't put food on the table and people are rioting in the streets. And if you think that's paranoia, just look at what's going on in Europe. The U.S. has historically shown
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 9:31 PM GMT
    BornJuly4th saidI'll remind you that Obama enjoyed the first two years of his term with control of BOTH houses of Congress.

    You'll remind us of a falsehood? Your statement is totally untrue. You are a liar.

    Please provide the numbers in Congress that prove you are not a liar. In order to have "control" of Congress the Democrats needed a super-majority in the US Senate, which they never had for a single day. Republican Senators used the filibuster more than anytime in the past to block Democratic initiatives. Please attempt to prove me wrong. You can't. You are a liar.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 10:01 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    BornJuly4th saidI'll remind you that Obama enjoyed the first two years of his term with control of BOTH houses of Congress.

    You'll remind us of a falsehood? Your statement is totally untrue. You are a liar.

    Please provide the numbers in Congress that prove you are not a liar. In order to have "control" of Congress the Democrats needed a super-majority in the US Senate, which they never had for a single day. Republican Senators used the filibuster more than anytime in the past to block Democratic initiatives. Please attempt to prove me wrong. You can't. You are a liar.


    The Democrats did not need a super-majority because they could and did use parliamentary procedures creatively to get whatever they wanted. Obamacare being the example obvious to most people with half a brain.

    And by the way, the definition of "control" for economic, financial and business purposes means a majority or holding greater than 50% of the vote. I never said they held a "super-majority". I don't have to prove anything.

    Prove to me that Obama wasn't incompetent when it came to handling the economy...oh, that's right, you can't.

    And nice of you to keep the discourse civil by throwing around the word "liar" and getting unnecessarily hostile. You have no place in this debate if you can only resort to name-calling and personal attacks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 11:28 PM GMT
    BornJuly4th said


    You clearly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about about. Romney hasn't managed Bain since he left it to take over the Olympics. The Clear Channel privatization occurred AFTER he left.


    Born-to-NOT-Read, CHECK OUT TODAY'S GAWKER STORY from their newly released BAIN DOCUMENTS:

    "Romney has long claimed, despite evidence to the contrary, that he retired from Bain Capital in 1999.
    The Bain documents we obtained indicate that ROMNEY'S INVOLVEMENT WITH BAIN EXTENDED YEARS PAST THAT DATE.

    Romney indicated in a financial disclosure form that he "retired" from Bain on Feb. 11, 1999. Gawker reports, however, that the presidential candidate had a stake in Sankaty Credit Opportunities, which was not created until 2002.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 11:37 PM GMT
    Balancing said
    BornJuly4th said


    You clearly don't have a clue as to what you're talking about about. Romney hasn't managed Bain since he left it to take over the Olympics. The Clear Channel privatization occurred AFTER he left.


    Born-to-NOT-Read, CHECK OUT TODAY'S GAWKER STORY from their newly released BAIN DOCUMENTS:

    "Romney has long claimed, despite evidence to the contrary, that he retired from Bain Capital in 1999.
    The Bain documents we obtained indicate that ROMNEY'S INVOLVEMENT WITH BAIN EXTENDED YEARS PAST THAT DATE.

    Romney indicated in a financial disclosure form that he "retired" from Bain on Feb. 11, 1999. Gawker reports, however, that the presidential candidate had a stake in Sankaty Credit Opportunities, which was not created until 2002.


    Now you're believing what you read on Gawker? What's next? Are you going to quote People Magazine or the National Inquirer?

    Any stake that he may have had after he left MANAGING Bain's day to day operations was likely the result of the blind trust. Keep digging for some real dirt...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2012 11:46 PM GMT
    BornJuly4th said
    Art_Deco said
    BornJuly4th saidI'll remind you that Obama enjoyed the first two years of his term with control of BOTH houses of Congress.

    You'll remind us of a falsehood? Your statement is totally untrue. You are a liar.

    Please provide the numbers in Congress that prove you are not a liar. In order to have "control" of Congress the Democrats needed a super-majority in the US Senate, which they never had for a single day. Republican Senators used the filibuster more than anytime in the past to block Democratic initiatives. Please attempt to prove me wrong. You can't. You are a liar.


    The Democrats did not need a super-majority because they could and did use parliamentary procedures creatively to get whatever they wanted. Obamacare being the example obvious to most people with half a brain.

    And by the way, the definition of "control" for economic, financial and business purposes means a majority or holding greater than 50% of the vote. I never said they held a "super-majority". I don't have to prove anything.

    Prove to me that Obama wasn't incompetent when it came to handling the economy...oh, that's right, you can't.

    And nice of you to keep the discourse civil by throwing around the word "liar" and getting unnecessarily hostile. You have no place in this debate if you can only resort to name-calling and personal attacks.


    when someone persists in perpetuating the same false statement time and again, despite prior evidence to the contrary, what else should they be called?
    icon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2012 12:19 AM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    BornJuly4th said
    Art_Deco said
    BornJuly4th saidI'll remind you that Obama enjoyed the first two years of his term with control of BOTH houses of Congress.

    You'll remind us of a falsehood? Your statement is totally untrue. You are a liar.

    Please provide the numbers in Congress that prove you are not a liar. In order to have "control" of Congress the Democrats needed a super-majority in the US Senate, which they never had for a single day. Republican Senators used the filibuster more than anytime in the past to block Democratic initiatives. Please attempt to prove me wrong. You can't. You are a liar.


    The Democrats did not need a super-majority because they could and did use parliamentary procedures creatively to get whatever they wanted. Obamacare being the example obvious to most people with half a brain.

    And by the way, the definition of "control" for economic, financial and business purposes means a majority or holding greater than 50% of the vote. I never said they held a "super-majority". I don't have to prove anything.

    Prove to me that Obama wasn't incompetent when it came to handling the economy...oh, that's right, you can't.

    And nice of you to keep the discourse civil by throwing around the word "liar" and getting unnecessarily hostile. You have no place in this debate if you can only resort to name-calling and personal attacks.


    when someone persists in perpetuating the same false statement time and again, despite prior evidence to the contrary, what else should they be called?
    icon_question.gif



    It is not a false statement to say that the Democrats controlled (i.e. held a majority or at least one seat greater than 50%) of both houses of Congress for the first two years of Obama's term in office. There's no debating that fact. It was and is a common statement to say that the party that holds a majority of seats "controls" Congress, as they chair committees, they determine which bills come up for a vote, etc. You're kidding yourself (or lying to yourself) if you think otherwise. See the link below to see how standard this language is/was. The title says that the Democrats "controlled" Congress and the first paragraph says that the Republicans had lost "control" of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. Is this really so hard for you to understand?

    http://www.ogilvypr.com/en/expert-view/what-does-new-democrat-controlled-congress-mean-our-clients

    If Art_Dumbass wants to insert language insinuating that I said they held a "super-majority", that makes him the dishonest one. I stand by my statement. If he wants to split hairs by claiming that the two Independent Senators that caucused with the Democrats and generally voted with the Dems, then I'd tell him to have his meds adjusted or to find a new hobby.

    And if Obama could have put forward anything but socialist economic policies at the beginning of his Presidency that were going to raise taxes on anyone (when every economist out there said that raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea), he could have garnered the vote of enough moderate Republicans to actually pass legislation. The fact that he didn't is his own fault. He failed, period.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2012 12:50 AM GMT
    Born-to-Repeat-The-Script says:

    "Any stake that he may have had after he left MANAGING Bain's day to day operations was likely the result of THE BLIND TRUST."



    Born,

    Let's review MITT'S OWN WORDS AGAIN:

    "THE BLIND TRUST is an age old ruse, if you will.......which is to say.

    you can always tell a blind trust what it can and can not do.

    YOU GIVE A BLIND TRUST RULES!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2012 12:57 AM GMT
    Balancing saidBorn-to-Repeat-The-Script says:

    "Any stake that he may have had after he left MANAGING Bain's day to day operations was likely the result of THE BLIND TRUST."



    Born,

    Let's review MITT'S OWN WORDS AGAIN:

    "THE BLIND TRUST is an age old ruse, if you will.......which is to say.

    you can always tell a blind trust what it can and can not do.

    YOU GIVE A BLIND TRUST RULES!"


    Maybe you need to do a little bit of reading about blind trusts, Un-balanced.

    In case you're too lazy to be bothered, here's the Wikipedia definition:

    "A blind trust is a trust in which the fiduciaries, namely the trustees or those who have been given power of attorney, have full discretion over the assets, and the trust beneficiaries have no knowledge of the holdings of the trust and no right to intervene in their handling. Blind trusts are generally used when a settlor (sometimes called a trustor or donor) wishes to keep the beneficiary unaware of the specific assets in the trust, such as to avoid conflict of interest between the beneficiary and the investments. Politicians or others in sensitive positions often place their personal assets (including investment income) into blind trusts, to avoid public scrutiny and accusations of conflicts of interest when they direct government funds to the private sector."

    When a blind trust is established, the owner sets up guidelines and/or limitations of what it can and cannot do, but as the above DEFINITION states, they are unaware of the assets in the trust in an attempt to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.

    Do some basic research before posting again, please.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2012 1:03 AM GMT
    Puhleeze Born-to-Pander,

    You're taking Wiki's word over MITT?

    HERE'S MITT'S DEFINITION:

    "THE BLIND TRUST is an age old ruse, if you will.......which is to say.

    you can always tell a blind trust what it can and can not do.

    YOU GIVE A BLIND TRUST RULES!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2012 1:06 AM GMT
    Balancing saidPuhleeze Born-to-Pander,

    You're taking Wiki's word over MITT?

    HERE'S MITT'S DEFINITION:

    "THE BLIND TRUST is an age old ruse, if you will.......which is to say.

    you can always tell a blind trust what it can and can not do.

    YOU GIVE A BLIND TRUST RULES!"


    You're a moron. The "rules" you give a blind trust are NOT to invest in tobacco companies that are poisoning our population or NOT to invest in companies that manufacture cluster munitions that kill or maim innocent people. You do NOT tell a blind trust to partner with Thomas H Lee Partners to take Clear Channel private SIX YEARS after the blind trust is established.

    Go troll somewhere else. I'm done responding to your idiocy.

    (And maybe you should look up the DEFINITION of the word DEFINITION)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2012 1:29 AM GMT
    Well, since some of you liked that link so much, how do you feel about this one from the same blog?{Or like most Christians quoting the bible verses, do you pick & choose which ones you like?}

    http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/category/economic-crisis
    Thanks Obama - Here Are 24 Stats That Show How Much You Have Royally Messed Up Our Economy
    Under Barack Obama, the U.S. economy has performed worse than it did under any other president since the end of the Great Depression. After every other recession since World War II, the U.S. economy always regained what was lost and got even stronger before the next recession began. During this "economic recovery", we have not even come close to getting back to where we were in 2008. In fact, the number of Americans living in poverty and the number of Americans that are dependent on the government both continue to explode even as Barack Obama runs up trillions of dollars of new debt. Anyone that believes that Barack Obama is going to "fix the economy" if he is given another four years in the White House has taken way too many sips of the Obama kool-aid. The truth is that Barack Obama is not going to save you. Barack Obama has royally messed up our economy (along with a lot of other things) and that is not something we should be thanking him for. (Read More.....)