Re: Romney Debate

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Give me a break....LOL Mcduff is a Canadian saying i suppose connected with Carry on....It is in NO way name calling...

Perhaps you are referring to Macbeth's final words before Macduff kills him in battle? "Lay on McDuff" Do yourself a favor and do a little research on that line from Macbeth. I think you will find it surprisingly relevant and fitting that you used that very phrase. ;)
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Perhaps you are referring to Macbeth's final words before Macduff kills him in battle? "Lay on McDuff" Do yourself a favor and do a little research on that line from Macbeth. I think you will find it surprisingly relevant and fitting that you used that very phrase. ;)

This is relevant, why? :confused: Nothing to do with Romney that I can see.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Perhaps you are referring to Macbeth's final words before Macduff kills him in battle? "Lay on McDuff" Do yourself a favor and do a little research on that line from Macbeth. I think you will find it surprisingly relevant and fitting that you used that very phrase. ;)

Get this....I DON'T CARE....

Now STAY on topic and off me.....
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Democrat Lite might fit him.

Not nearly, I think that much of the republican party is the same because it seems much of the party is looking as he is the guy for them.

I would think that his past record of working with dems in Mass would be a good indication of how well he would do as a president but than I think he would govern just like McCain.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Not nearly, I think that much of the republican party is the same because it seems much of the party is looking as he is the guy for them.

I would think that his past record of working with dems in Mass would be a good indication of how well he would do as a president but than I think he would govern just like McCain.

McCain is more or less a liberal Dumb-O-Crat too. Same as Romney. It makes little difference. Unless we are lucky enough to unseat 100% of the congress.
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
I don't like the guy at all, won't vote FOR him, but if he gets the nomimation, I'll vote AGAINST barry...he is a rino...but in this instance, he is a "businessman"...that is simply stating there were other ways to deal with gm and chrysler..and using tax dollars wasn't it...and ill add it wasn't for sooo many reasons....

That's cool. I'm voting against Barry too... by voting Libertarian or Constitution party. RINOs, IMO, are worse than socialists. At least you know where socialists sit. And by voting for RINOs, all you do is encourage them... like buying whiny little tantrum-throwers a candy bar to keep them quiet.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
So back to my original question in case some missed it....
WHAT is this other source he refers to?

This is nothing more than pointless nitpicking. Your OP linked the source as an article from the NY Times dated Oct 14, (and that's where it came from: NYT: Obama Visits Michigan as Auto) which included a statement by Romney in the GOP presidential debate earlier in the week. The McDuff phrase should be familiar to anyone who got past the 9th grade. Can't be much more simple and straightforward than that.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Get this....I DON'T CARE....

Now STAY on topic and off me.....

Touchy, touchy........


Here ya go. First of all, Romney wanted the automakers go through normal bankruptcy then have the government step in.

The contention of this whole thing started when Romney wrote this op-ed in November of '08 titled, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"

Where he stated:
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.

His recommended course of action was this:

I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

We still would've used taxpayer money to ensure positive results by pumping more money into research on "energy sources", "fuel-economy technology" and he wanted to let universities, research labs and public-private collaboration that would benefit the automative industry in the long run. The government would've guaranteed the post-bankruptcy financing(which is taxpayer money). In his opinion it would've been less than what Obama was suggesting. Like someone else mentioned earlier, Romney was was for a “managed bankruptcy” and funneling money elsewhere to ensure the auto makers comeback.

This is also worthy to add:
Source
Even some initial critics of the bailout eventually conceded that Obama had gotten it right. The Economist — hardly a bastion of Big Government liberalism — apologized to Obama for opposing the bailout, noting that it was “unlikely” that the restructuring would have worked “had the government not stepped in.”

Oh.....to answer your question. Their was no other source other than the taxpayers money.
 
Last edited:
Top