Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital Read more: http://www.rollingstone.c
 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...pital-20120829

Get a big ass coffee mug and read...then come back and discuss.


The article is written by Matt Taibbi.

Actually read it all, and it's a great article.. Makes you angry and upset about how big of a piece of shit Romney really is. And to think he might become the most powerful guy in the world, and has almost half the country voting for him.. Absolutely incredible..

It's a shame very few will take the time to read this though..

I have that issue (got it yesterday)

Keep in mind that ALL of Rolling Stone's political articles are extremely liberal biased (in case you've been under a rock since the 1960's and don't realize that).

I love the magazine. But they only "report" half truths and whatever fits into their "side" of things on politics. If a person were only to read Rolling Stone and then watch MSNBC they would be completely bewildered at why there even IS a Republican party. lol

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1080...olli ng+stone

10 days too late :1orglaugh:thumbsup

You've just described Mark Prince in that last paragraph.

yeah, I'm not that, and I understand perfectly well why there is and should be a republican party. There is a lot of conservative ideas I agree with, and as a business owner I can understand why voting republican could be wise when it comes to a lot of issues. But the way the Republican party has seemingly shifted after the rise of the tea-party and the pathetic selection of candidates they managed to put forward for this election is just astonishing. And Romney seems to be the biggest crook to ever be nominated. I'm sure the Rolling Stones articles are biased and left leaning, but I have no doubt that what Romney stands for, and what he made his fortune from, is not by creating jobs and doing what's best for his country or employees of his companies, but what is best for his own selfish agenda, and what makes him the most money possible.

Romney is as far away as you can possible get from what America needs right now. I would be so pissed right now if I were a true Republican, and Romney was my only option to vote for.

Read the authors other articles. He hates dems and repubs equally.

Just read it the other day. It is a very interesting article. It has some basis, but it really sheds some light on where Romney comes from and how he made his money.

Then he's probably doing what I would do...tailoring what he writes to the magazine he's selling the article to.

Everybody has an agenda these days it seems. :(

By the way, I'm up to the 1970's in that Vegas website you showed me. It's fucking awesome!

He calls the left counterparts of Bain the "equally spooky Democrat-leaning assholes at the Blackstone Group", in this article, so I agree Taibbi takes a non-partisan approach.

is he running for office ?:winkwink:

Any time when there are facts in an article it is called "left leaning".

The intention Romney originally had to rescue companies and making them profitable didn't make much money at all.

Romney and the crew at Bain got wise and started making mad cash whether or not the company prospered or failed.

Also, if you read this article, Romney made his fortune because of a US tax loophole...the same write-off you get when you deduct your interest from your mortgage payments.

So much for government of getting in the way of Romney making his fortune.

i was just enjoying reading about Putin state that Romney has already strengthed their position regarding the missile shield

Right. Or "liberal".

If an article exposes the GOP, they say "Whatta you expect from the liberal media"?

If an article exposes a Dem they say "Even the liberal media can't deny this!"

It's all about working the ref.

http://i1081.photobucket.com/albums/...o-headsJPG.jpg

Nice! Yeah, that guy spent a whole lotta time researching. Learned a whole lot more than I thought I knew, and the shit I thought I knew before was all wrong. :1orglaugh:thumbsup

Read the article. Like most articles it starts out with a premise. See if you can guess it?

He describes Romneys childhood: "He was born disgustingly rich"
Yep...if you go out and work and make something of yourself and then have a son...that son isn't born to wealthy family. Nope, he's DISGUSTINGLY rich.

Because having a lot of money is "disgusting" in the view of the writer.

Next up, he takes a speech where Romney used a metaphor of the debt being like a wildfire coming towards your home and your children.
The metaphor is of course that the debt is passed on to the next generation.

In the next sentence the writer says that Romney is scaring people into believing that their children will be "roasted alive" by the debt. :1orglaugh
I guess when you are an elitist political writer, you just automatically assume that us "regular" people can't understand what a metaphor is and what the meaning was.

He then goes on to minimize any real dangers of the debt. And then waxes poetically how guys like Romney are responsible for the factories that everyone's fathers and grandfathers worked in going bankrupt and all the jobs going overseas.

Rich guys did it.

Apparently in this "unbiased" world of the author....the fact that the U.S. has one of the highest corporate taxes in the world has NOTHING to do with it. The fact that union labor drives cost through the roof has NOTHING to do with it. Overreaching govt. regulations and licensing and fees and endless bureaucratic hoops to jump through..has NOTHING to do with it.
And most importantly...the fact that a lot of those jobs are obsolete (as President Obama told us himself during his convention speech last week when he said we need to get educated for the new economy) and the products that were being made are no longer being purchased by consumers...has NOTHING to do with it.

It's all just rich guys.

And Bush. :1orglaugh

He lays it on pretty thick in this article, but Taibbi seems to dislike both sides. He goes after Obama pretty regularly.

Here are a few of the topics from posts on his blog:

Why Obama's JOBS Act Couldn't Suck Worse

Goldman Non-Prosecution: AG Eric Holder Has No Balls

Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche

The Best Politicians Money Can Buy

Obama and Geithner: Government, Enron-Style

Woman Gets Jail For Food-Stamp Fraud; Wall Street Fraudsters Get Bailouts

He seems to go after just about everyone. It is clear that he doesn't like Romney and he hates Wall Street, but I think when you take his body of work as a whole he dishes out the criticism pretty fairly across the board. It seems like his attitude is that they are all crooks and I don't think he is too far off with that.

Taibbi's one of the best of the best writers on the financial/political scene. And yes, he is an equal-opportunity bullshit caller.

Unlike most people, he sees things from (if you will) 35,000' instead of the cloudbank of dem/rep partisanship.

His writing in this Rolling Stone piece is not "bullshit calling", it's more akin to writing bullshit.

If you are going to go after Romney in a hit piece like this...why is it needed to exaggerate and paint an untrue picture?
If that is what passes for the "best" political writing, it's disgraceful.

You can make most anybody look bad just by telling it like it is. You don't have to stretch the truth out of proportion. His article read like a GFY post instead of serious political commentary to me.

Exactly which part(s) of the story is(are) untrue?

Aside that, yes, Taibbi isn't just some dry reporter. He does paint pictures. I don't see anything wrong with that. He's absolutely eviscerated loads of people who've deserved it (with facts, i might add), regardless of their political bent. Frankly this type of honest, fact-based outrage is in woefully short supply in this country.

Whatever man. I have the article in my hand right now. If you don't want to see that this is a hit piece...then allow me to show you:

1. The title of the article.

2. Nice pic of Romney as a child with his father. The caption?
"Wrecking the legacy. Mitt, age 10, in 1957. He worshipped his dad, George- but spent his career destroying the America his father helped build"

3. He words things in a way to make you think it's something EVIL.
For instance he talks about how Romney invested in businesses without using "his own money". He borrowed it from banks.
You know...EXACTLY like everyone else in the world does. lol

4. Whenever he quotes Romney or any other big financial guy in America in the piece he describes it in derogatory words like "sneered".
Here's that for you:
"Last time I checked" former Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack SNEERED, "we were in the business to be profitable"
Why is that statement bad? And why would he "sneer" it?

5. He makes up a bunch of shit. First he explains that what Romney is doing is what the mob used to call a "bustout" (lol).
Then he writes this:
"It's the bustout" one Wall Street Trader says with a laugh, "That's all it is"
Really? "one Wall Street Trader" is the source?

That's just making up an imaginary guy and quoting him. lol

By the way...I'm not taking "sides" between Obama and Romney in this discussion.

I'm just saying that Rolling Stone magazine is a very liberal political magazine. Nothing wrong with that. Jan Wenner owns it and can do as he pleases.

I read it and I take the political writings with a grain of salt.

Hunter S. Thompson was the best at writing entertaining political observations in Rolling Stone. I loved reading his insanity.

But most of the politics in Rolling Stone are simply hit pieces from the left. So when you read it you have to think for yourself a little bit too. It's no different than what right wing magazines probably do to Obama (though I've never read a right wing magazine so I have no proof of that)

Robbie, I'm not saying it isn't a hit piece. It is a fact-based hit piece. Taibbi hits hard and that's why i like him. Most of the 'press' these days are either total partisans or total pussies.

But where are the factual inaccuracies?

The things you point out aren't factual inaccuracies. It seems more that you don't like how the facts were presented, and that's ok. With respect to #5, you say he made up the quote. That's nice...how do you know that? It's 'made up' because you say so?

Of course he made that up about a "wall street insider".

That's an old trick used every week by gossip magazines: "An insider for Jennifer Aniston told US Weekly that yes she really wants a baby." :1orglaugh

As for the factual inaccuracies...If I say you "ran to the bank to get a loan so you didn't use your own money" instead of: "Like every other business in America you borrowed money" then yeah, he's leading you to think what he wants you to think.

I don't call that "reporting". I call it mind control (trying to make you believe something). If I read that piece and didn't realize what Rolling Stones politics are...I would swear that Romney is 100% EVIL and is kicked back rubbing his hands in glee a the very thought of destroying people's lives. :1orglaugh

So it is made up because you say so. ok, you win.

Damn man..you don't want to even concede that it's shoddy journalism?

I don't "win" because this isn't a competition. I'm just saying the piece is incredibly liberal slanted. And it's not serious reporting in any way, shape, or form. But it's fine for political commentary in Rolling Stone. :)