Since: Sep 12

Seattle, WA

#39476 Oct 18, 2012
Bobby64, it's okay, you don't need to keep hiding.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/
Dan the Man

Newville, PA

#39477 Oct 18, 2012
Dave Rogers wrote:
Hey bobby64, you kept asking me to show any electoral map that shows Romney winning. Well here it is my round brown friend.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/...
Obama can't win without Ohio. LMAO
This is, of course, false. Obama can with without Ohio AND Florida. Romney can't win if he loses either one of them.

But more importantly, Romney isn't winning Ohio.

----------

RCP Average - 10/5 - 10/17 - Obama +2.4
Rasmussen Reports - 10/17 - 10/17 - Obama +1
SurveyUSA - 10/12 - 10/15 - Obama +3
PPP (D)- 10/12 - 10/13 - Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports - 10/10 - 10/10 - Obama +1
Gravis Marketing - 10/6 - 10/10 - Romney +1
NBC/WSJ/Marist - 10/7 - 10/9 - Obama +6
ARG - 10/5 - 10/8 - Romney +1
CNN/Opinion Research - 10/5 - 10/8 - Obama +4
SurveyUSA - 10/5 - 10/8 - Obama +1
WeAskAmerica - 10/4 - 10/4 - Romney +1
Rasmussen Reports - 10/4 - 10/4 - Obama +1
Dan the Man

Newville, PA

#39489 Oct 18, 2012
Romney’s jobs plan revealed to be flim-flam

There you have it. Ten million of those jobs in Romney’s plan represent an entirely bogus promise. As for the remaining two million jobs that would be supposedly created by Romney’s trade policies, the report supplied by the Romney camp bills itself as “highly conditional”— and also doesn’t evaluate any of Romney’s policies. Kessler dubs Romney’s plan “bait and switch.”

Let’s recap what Kessler has discovered here. The plan that is central to Romney’s candidacy on the most important issue of this election — jobs — is a complete sham. This is every bit as bad — or worse — than Romney’s claim to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain, or his vow to cut spending by eliminating whole agencies without saying which ones, or his refusal to say how he’ll pay for his tax cuts.
...
Oh, and by the way: Economists have evaluated Obama’s jobs plan. And they concluded it would create one to two million jobs.

The bottom line is simple: One candidate has a jobs plan, and the other doesn’t.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line...
Dan the Man

Newville, PA

#39490 Oct 18, 2012
Romney's central jobs argument exposed as fraudulent

If I had a nickel for every time Mitt Romney promised voters he'd create 12 million jobs if elected, I'd have nearly as much money as Mitt Romney. To a very real extent, it's become the central argument underpinning Romney's entire candidacy: vote for him, get 12 million jobs.

Indeed, the Republican best known for laying off American workers and failing to create jobs during his one term as governor, has been fairly specific, at least in terms of the goal: he'll not only create 12 million new jobs, Romney will do so in one term.

The main problem with Romney's vague and unspecified jobs plan has been the fact that the economy is on track to create 12 million jobs between 2012 and 2016 anyway. It makes this a pretty weak promise as campaign boasts go.

But to his credit, Glenn Kessler dug a little deeper, and discovered the Romney campaign's central argument is based on a shameless lie.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/16/...

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#39491 Oct 18, 2012
a few weeks away and obama be elected out.

i still cant figure how people can slobber so much over a politician. kinda disturbing really

obama been nothing but a wall street puppet. yes having key wall st players such as larry summers,geitner,rubin, and bernanke(self proclaimed man above the law) is like putting the fox in the hen house. wall st reform? LMAO!!!

the fed has stolen over 24 TRILLION from the US treasury and much given to foreign banks and bernanke wont say which institutions or how much. whats that tell you ?

TOO BIG TOO FAIL IS A MYTH !!! you cant give wall st a blank check and hope all goes well via tarp and stimulus pay offs.

i can only hope romney does not offer the same.

the fed high rolling bankers do want:
CENTRAL BANK OF WORLD
NEW WORLD ORDER
GLOBAL GOVT.
CARBON TAXES

with them in charge of the masses course
little birdie

Wellsboro, PA

#39495 Oct 18, 2012
Here is a anti-marijuana and anti-gay Pennsylvania state congresswoman when the doors are closed.


Now here she is when the doors are open and her hypocrisy is in full view of others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Dem Socialist Hater

Mckeesport, PA

#39496 Oct 18, 2012
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary, No longer voluntary. 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program, Now 7.65% on the first $90,000. 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,Nolonger tax deductible. 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program, and, under Johnson the money was moved to the general fund and spent. 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your social security can be taxed. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a social security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to 'put away'-- you may be interested in the following:--------- Q: Which political party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.--------- Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?A: The Democratic party.--------- Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.--------- Q: Which political party decided to startgiving annuity payments to immigrants? AND MY FAVORITE: A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!--------- Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Securityaway! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
The Great Gadsby

Brooklyn, NY

#39499 Oct 18, 2012
Does anyone else find it ironic that the name of the first poster on this thread was:
"CLOSE IT DOWN"

Surely;
This has to be one of the signs of the apocolypse that were going to experience if Romneys elected.

Since: Sep 12

Seattle, WA

#39500 Oct 18, 2012
President Obama’s Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures

It is no secret that President Obama’s and green-energy supporters’(from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

So far, 36 companies that have received federal support from taxpayers have either gone bankrupt or are laying off workers and are heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
1.Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3.Solyndra ($535 million)*
4.Beacon Power ($69 million)*
5.AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
6.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
7.SunPower ($1.5 billion)
8.First Solar ($1.46 billion)
9.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
10.EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
11.Amonix ($5.9 million)
12.National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
13.Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
14.Abound Solar ($374 million)*
15.A123 Systems ($279 million)*
16.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
17.Johnson Controls ($299 million)
18.Schneider Electric ($86 million)
19.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
20.ECOtality ($126.2 million)
21.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
22.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
23.Mountain Plaza, Inc.($2 million)*
24.Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
25.Range Fuels ($80 million)*
26.Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
27.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
28.LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
29.UniSolar ($100 million)*
30.Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
31.GreenVolts ($500,000)
32.Vestas ($50 million)
33.LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
34.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
35.Navistar ($10 million)
36.Satcon ($3 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.

The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.
Mutt vs Mitt

West Mifflin, PA

#39501 Oct 18, 2012
9-14-12: The House reauthorized the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, then limited taxpayer exposure to a 2005 Energy Policy Act. No jobs were created.

9-17&18-2012: The House took the first two days of this week off, because they CAN. No jobs were created.

9-19-12: The House approved: funding for Colordo fish recovery, Mescalero Apache's right to lease water rights, passage of an Iranian boogey-man rule, meaningless lip music to Georgia (Asia), a pancreatic cancer initiative, astronauts right to retain personal artififacts, improved fiduciaries of veterans, donations by tax-payers to the IRS, freeing dead veterans from educational debt, change in interest rates for the Small Business Act, the tracking of cross-border violence, aid to Burma, banned Chinese drywall, provisions for a National Pediatric Research Network, and the easing of rules to allow veterans to become EMTs. No jobs were created.

9-20-2012: The House approved:
limiting the Secretary of the Interiors authority to issue regulations untils December of 2012, plus several incomprehensible child welfare bills. No jobs were created.

9-21-12: The House approved the "Stop the War on Coal Act". I needn't remind you how pointlessly absurd this bill was. No jobs were created.

9-24-12: The House took the day off. No jobs were created.

9-25-12: The House played a little game called "Hmm, I wonder what they're doing in the Senate today?" Otherwise, bupkis. No jobs were created.

9-26-12: The House took the day off. No jobs were created.

9-27-12: The House took the day off. No jobs were created.

9-28-12: The House passed three bills regarding privacy and security issues. No jobs were created.

10-1&2&3-12: The House is taking the week off. No jobs were created.

----------

Sorry. No job creation here. In fact, if you want to really understand what the Republican Party is trying to tell you simply insert the phrase "corporate profits" every time they say "jobs".
Mutt vs Mitt

West Mifflin, PA

#39502 Oct 18, 2012
7-18-2012: The House was in recess on Monday the 16th. On the 17th it passed both a Department of State appropriations bill and the Insular Areas Act of 2011.(Insular areas are, generally speaking, small islands which the U.S. claims for itself.) No jobs were created.

7-20-2012: The House spent the 18th and 19th debating the massive Defense Appropriations Bill. No jobs were created.

7-23-2012: The House spent the Friday the 20th debating the massive Defense Appropriations Bill. No jobs were created.

7-25-2012: The House spent the 23th and 24th marking time until the August recess debating various suspension bills (requires a 2/3 vote), one of which prohibits the issuance of new regulations on business until the unemployment rate falls below 6%. Need I add which party authored such a nonsensical piece of tripe?

7-27-2012: On Wednesday the 25th the House voted to require a full audit of the Federal Reserve. On Thursday the 26th the House spent most of the day passing amendments for suspension bills, plus one whole hour to fix one typo. No jobs were created.

7-30-2012: The House took last Friday, the 27th, off because it was SUCH a tough week accomplishing nothing.

8-1-2012: The House was in recess Monday the 30th. On the 31st they took votes on three bills. One was to reduce executive positions subject to Senate approval and one was to make tax delinquents ineligible for federal jobs. These were essentially job-reducing bills, so of course they both passed. The third was an anti-abortion bill. It failed. Negative jobs were created.

8-3-2012: On Wednesday, the 1st, the House passed a series of ho-hum suspension rules and eventually voted down a revision of the Bush tax cuts that would have only taxed earnings in excess of $250k.

On Thursday, the 2nd, the House passed a resolution that said the government should keep its grubby mitts off the internet.

The House will now be in recess for the next five weeks. Maybe.

9-10-12 & 9-11-12: The House is finally back in session and the past two days have seen a flurry of voting on various bills, but they all ended on the same note:

"Motion to reconsider laid on the table and Agreed to without objection."

Meaning "Okay, we voted for this turkey but we're going to give it old skunk-eye once more before passing it along to the Senate."

9-12-12: The House passed bills to: extend the FISA Act, promote competitiveness in American manufacturing (don't get excited), and a land swap in Minnesota. No jobs were created.

9-13-12: The House passed nothing today, and for the first time in modern history, in the midst of a terrible drought, the House will not pass a Farm Bill. Not only have no jobs been created but our nation's farmers are going bankrupt. No jobs were created.
Mutt vs Mitt

West Mifflin, PA

#39503 Oct 18, 2012
5-21-2012: On Friday the House passed a bloated defense spending bill, even though they were obligated to cut defense spending as part of the Super Committee agreement. Not only did the new bill include discriminitory language it also included an amendment allowing the government to institute propaganda against the American people. The president has vowed to veto this bill. No jobs were created unless you count the military contractors rolling in effluent streams of your tax dollars.
5-23-2012: Say it with me now: "The House is in recess until the 30th of May. Must be nice to have so many vacations. Oh, how I hate those indolent GOP swine."
6-1-2012: Another day, another abortion bill. This time the "Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act." Which was designed to stop abortions based on sex or race. Seriously. It failed to pass. Apart from that bit of nonsense the day was one long last-minute rush to pass bills that pay the government credit card. No jobs were created.
6-4-2012: Last Friday three Democratic (Hahn, Kaptur, Tonko) amendments to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy failed, while three Republican (Hultgren, Chaffetz, McClintock) amendments to reduce funding of energy efficiency and renewable energy also failed. No jobs were created.
6-6-2012: The House was not in session on Monday but on Tuesday it spent the day amending water and energy bills, mostly shuffling money from one account to another. It was not a job creating event.
6-8-2012: The House passed a bill to repeal a new exise tax on medical devices. The GOP refers to this as a "jobs bill". Another waste of time as the Senate will not consider the bill. In the meantime the GOP is still losing its shit over incandescent lightbulbs, voting to restrict funding for the application of energy-efficient lighting (The GOP evidently believes that CFL's are manufactured in Hell itself.) Job creation was not in evidence.
6-11-2012: On Friday the House voted to cut funding for Open World Leadership Center, the Congressional Research Service, and the Washington Botanic Garden. But, on the bright side, they voted themselves funds to print some snazzy new pocket-sized editions of the U.S. Constitution to hand out to constituents. As always, no jobs were created.
The House is in recess until the 18th of June.
6-20-2012: The past two days have seen nothing fancy from the House. Just a couple of suspension bills and some laws aimed at American Indians. No attempt was made to create jobs.
6-22-2012: The clusterfuck that is the Republican-led House of Representatives spent much time dawdling over the transportation bill, the only meaningful jobs bill under consideration.(Don't get your panties twisted about the "jobs" part of this bill. This same bill must be extended each and every year and the only time there's any opposition is when the president is black.) No jobs were created.
6-25-2012: The House adjourned on Friday, the 22nd. No jobs were created.
6-27-2012: The House was pro forma on Monday but was in session until almost 11:30 Tuesday night. Nothing got done. They couldn't even agree to name four post offices. No jobs were created.
6-29-2012: On Thursday, the 28th, the House passed several Homeland Security bills, named a couple of post offices, and voted to hold U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of.... something, because the right-wing base is screaming for blood and they must be appeased. No jobs were created.
7-2-2012: On Friday, the 29th, the House grudgingly passed the Transportation Bill, which has never been a problem up until now, and mortgaged the future of college graduates. No jobs were created.
The House is now adjourned until the 9th of July.
Mutt vs Mitt

West Mifflin, PA

#39505 Oct 18, 2012
More job creation from the GOP here
LQQK HERE:

http://republicanjobcreation.com/

ŘMG!!!!!
gshoes

Pittsburgh, PA

#39511 Oct 18, 2012
Dave Rogers wrote:
Romney wins in a landslide -- Las Vegas oddsmaker doubles down on prediction

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/09/rom...
You are going to be crying the day after the election
Mutt vs Mitt

West Mifflin, PA

#39515 Oct 18, 2012
For nearly 20 years, Mitt Romney specialized in corporate buyouts.

It’s an experience he cites as a key credential for running for president. And while it’s true that Romney’s business philosophy often led to profit for him and his partners, far too often it came at great cost to American workers and their communities.

At first, Romney focused primarily on venture-capital deals, investing in start-ups or companies that were looking to expand. But by the early ’90s, Romney and his partners began looking for bigger payouts with less risk, believing there was more money to be made buying and selling existing businesses than growing new ones.

Using what’s called a “leveraged buyout,” Romney and his investors would take control of a successful business, paying only a fraction of the total price. The rest would be paid for by loading the company up with debt, using the firm they were buying as collateral—so ultimately the company, not Romney, would be responsible for paying back the debt.

That left Romney and his partners free to extract as much profit from the companies as possible.

In the face of mounting debt, the company would then be forced to cut costs—often by reducing wages and benefits, closing factories and stores, and laying off workers. Sometimes, this debt was enough to drive the company into bankruptcy.

Mitt Romney wasn’t trying to build companies for the long term. His plan was to maximize short-term profits, and then resell all or part of the business before the debts came due.

The goal was never to create jobs—the goal was to create wealth for investors, as even his former partner admitted.

All investments involve risk, but under Mitt Romney’s leadership he and his partners carefully structured deals so that even when the companies in question went bankrupt, Romney and his investors maximized their potential gain. Using this model, they made millions, even while driving some businesses into bankruptcy and leaving workers without jobs, health care, and pensions.
Mutt vs Mitt

West Mifflin, PA

#39517 Oct 18, 2012
"I will create millions of GOOD paying jobs" - Mitt Romney October 2012

In reality Romney created mostly part time jobs or full time jobs that paid very little without any or ver little healthcare and other benefits

How do these"Romney job creator" jobs stack up against other jobs? Average Staples salaries for job postings nationwide are 51% lower than average salaries for all job postings. The pay at Staples appears to be around $8-10 an hour. That's $16-20,000 a year, certainly not enough to support a family, or even pay rent in many areas, never mind buying food.(The 2012 poverty guideline for family of four is $23,050.

Cut to the chase. We currently operate under an economic paradigm, or system, in which the Romneys have so much power they can fire masses of people or force people to take pay cuts, and then pocket the difference for themselves. They can squeeze their suppliers for greater and greater concessions and then pocket the difference for themselves. We have to come to grips with that.

Romney/Bain didn't really create jobs with Staples, they put small office and stationery retailers and other already-existing competitors out of businesses and moved the workers from those outlets into jobs at Staples that pay very little. In other words, they didn't create 100,000 jobs, they lowered 100,000 people's wages.

Romney made his money operating on a playing field of business rules that let him and Bain and Wal-Mart and the rest do what they do. They were all able to tilt that playing field in their favor using the wealth and power they already had, and they tilted it in ways that gain them more wealth and power.

Mitt Romney gained his wealth and power on that playing field, and is campaigning with a promise to further tilt that playing field in favor of the few who already have great wealth and power.

We can change those rules. We can demand better pay, higher taxes at the top, better products, better service, and all the things sensible people would demand if We, the People were really in charge
Mutt vs Mitt

West Mifflin, PA

#39518 Oct 18, 2012
For nearly 20 years, Mitt Romney specialized in corporate buyouts.

It’s an experience he cites as a key credential for running for president. And while it’s true that Romney’s business philosophy often led to profit for him and his partners, far too often it came at great cost to American workers and their communities.

At first, Romney focused primarily on venture-capital deals, investing in start-ups or companies that were looking to expand. But by the early ’90s, Romney and his partners began looking for bigger payouts with less risk, believing there was more money to be made buying and selling existing businesses than growing new ones.

Using what’s called a “leveraged buyout,” Romney and his investors would take control of a successful business, paying only a fraction of the total price. The rest would be paid for by loading the company up with debt, using the firm they were buying as collateral—so ultimately the company, not Romney, would be responsible for paying back the debt.

That left Romney and his partners free to extract as much profit from the companies as possible.

In the face of mounting debt, the company would then be forced to cut costs—often by reducing wages and benefits, closing factories and stores, and laying off workers. Sometimes, this debt was enough to drive the company into bankruptcy.

Mitt Romney wasn’t trying to build companies for the long term. His plan was to maximize short-term profits, and then resell all or part of the business before the debts came due.

The goal was never to create jobs—the goal was to create wealth for investors, as even his former partner admitted.

All investments involve risk, but under Mitt Romney’s leadership he and his partners carefully structured deals so that even when the companies in question went bankrupt, Romney and his investors maximized their potential gain. Using this model, they made millions, even while driving some businesses into bankruptcy and leaving workers without jobs, health care, and pensions.

OBAMA 2012~~~~~
YEAHHH BABYYYYYY!
Mitt vs Mutt

West Mifflin, PA

#39519 Oct 18, 2012
Job Creator?
Mitt Romney says he should be President because he and his company Bain Capital created 100,000 jobs at Staples and "created jobs" at other companies that Bain took over. So ... did Mitt Romney really "create jobs" at Staples? Or did he and Bain really just follow the Wal-Mart model, using the advantages that come with having large, national chains, putting a number of local, smaller businesses out of business, while shifting a lot of people into lower-paying jobs? Understanding the difference is important because Romney says he will help the country "create jobs" the way he helped "create jobs" at Staples.

He says his experience is just what is needed to solve our national jobs emergency. He wants to apply the methods that "created 100,000 jobs at Staples" to the entire country. He says he will cut regulations and cut government and make the country more "business-friendly." This means we should take a good look at Staples and the rest of the companies Mitt Romney and Bain Capital and others like them operated, and decide if this is really the way We, the People want to go.

Staples
Staples grew into a major chain because they consolidated what different kinds of stores sold, offering a one-stop-shop for stationery products, office supplies, office-furniture, computers, etc. They also were able to be competitive because of the advantages of scale as they grew into a national chain, centralizing functions like accounting, purchasing, legal, marketing, etc. And never underestimate the power of having a ton of cash at your disposal. This is all just smart business, well executed.

As Staples grew it overtook competing chains like Businessland and others. In other words, Staples took business from other, existing stores -- often local retailers. Staples did not “create” jobs, it shifted office-supply jobs from local stores, etc., probably to lower-paying jobs.(The former owners of local businesses certainly were worse off from this.) They likely even lowered overall office-supply, stationery, etc. employment in the larger economy.
Mitt vs Mutt

West Mifflin, PA

#39520 Oct 18, 2012
Whoa! Even Romney's Scripted Binder Story Was A Lie!
In the second debate Romney said, "I had the chance to pull together a Cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men," he said. "I went to a number of women's groups and said,'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Turns out that Romney didn't even ask aides to look for qualified women as he said in his prepared statement at the debate, women's groups brought the binders to him. He did not go to a number of women's groups as he claimed. He did not ask for the binders. They came to him, he did not seek them out.

He just plain lied about it, in an attempt to get votes from women.

Again: The percentage of women in senior positions went down under Romney. Romney undermined the gains women had made.

Romney, however, did not have a history of appointing women to high-level positions in the private sector. Romney did not have any women partners as CEO of Bain Capital during the 1980s and 1990s.

The venture capital and private equity fields were male-dominated, to be sure, especially during Romney’s time.
Mitt vs Mutt

West Mifflin, PA

#39521 Oct 18, 2012
Hitler interviews Mitt Romney

LQQK HERE:

&fe ature=related

THE CLEAR CHOICE
OBAMA 2012!!!!!!
YEAHHH BABYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hanover Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Snyder's of Hanover (Aug '09) Dec 22 toms 5,576
pump it powder (Jan '12) Dec 15 askmetray28 39
Two charged in heroin arrest Dec 13 lady 1
power outage littlestown pa Nov '14 Pink Eye 6
Man hits boy, 4, in head with beer bottle at Ad... Nov '14 Pink Eye 7
13 charged in Littlestown drug bust (Jun '09) Nov '14 Just a thought 222
Police seize more than $250,000 in methamphetam... Nov '14 Just a thought 11
Hanover Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Hanover People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Hanover News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hanover

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:31 pm PST

Bleacher Report 4:31PM
Did Eagles Err in Cutting D-Jax?
CBS Sports 7:55 PM
John Harbaugh: Family not pushing Jim Harbaugh to Michigan
Bleacher Report 8:10 PM
Breaking Down Giants Game Plan vs. Eagles
NFL 6:32 AM
Ravens' Justin Forsett buys televisions for his blockers
NFL 8:41 AM
Chip Kelly plans to evaluate Nick Foles in offseason