Thursday, March 10, 2011

Neither a Socialist Nor a Capitalist Be


Acolyte Gustavsson has posed quite a paradox for the probing intellectual to consider. He has on sundry occasions assured our readers that Mitt Romney is a socialist, or at the least a closet socialist, for his role in writing and passing MassCare. But today, the intrepid Acolyte has left the astute reader in a quandary when he proposed this paradox. Mitt Romney is also a capitalist!

Here’s the problem: If you spend 30 years in a place with no real ethics, chances are you’ll forget what it really is. Mitt Romney spent three decades of his life being deep fried in business thinking. He might have been like the healthiest carrot in the beginning, but if you deep fry a carrot for 30 years, there won’t be many vitamins left.

The evidence of Romney's alliance with the devil continue to pile up. He was a capitalist! Before he was a socialist! Beware fair reader, in 2012 Mitt Romney will once again be a capitalist as he tries to fool all the public in his presidential run. Will this man never stop flip flopping?

Of course Romney can't stop flipping and flopping, with the fires of hell burning in the souls of his Gucci loafers.

Many thanks to Acolyte Gustavsson for his tireless efforts to expose this evil man for what he is. Notice how cunning our dear Acolyte is in his expose. He carefully sidesteps potentially lethal mines as he doesn't address Romney's actual record. Be careful Acolyte, do not let the dogs of hell spin away the specific, unethical deeds that Romney engaged in. Instead our dear little friend keeps his accusations vague enough to avoid confrontation over an actual record. And most brilliant of all, he very cleverly laces his argument with subtle innuendos.

...someone will have to convince customers that child labor is bad, then businesses may follow suit and stop using it).

Keep fighting the good fight dear Acolyte.

28 comments:

Granny T said...

I can tell the John is pretty young. I'm tired of trying to beat my head against a wall commenting on his posts. So, I've started to ignore him. I read a couple lines and that is quite enough. I have no clue why Race gave him front page posting privileges - especially when he's not even anywhere near America.

Like I've said before - when I see someone going negative I see it as a sign of desperation - and a sign there isn't enough good to say about their own candidate so they need to kneecap the competition. IMO Huckabee supporters have no reason to become desperate and there are plenty of positive things to say about Huckabee.

Right Wingnut said...

John's post on Race was a bit odd, but I'm equally disturbed by my buddy asparagus for trying to paint John as anti-Mormon.

John said...

My point was not that businessmen cannot be politicians or shouldn't be. I was simply trying to explain why I think Romney has flip-flopped so much - he is too much of a businessman in politics. And I don't hate Romney nor think he is evil.

And he is not a socialist. You need to shape up, these satirical posts are immature.

I was just flipping the coin, showing the negative side of having business experience when entering politics. I don't deny there are good things about it.

DanL said...

John, I need to shape up or what? You'll come to America, apply for citizenship, and vote for Hucakabee? Or maybe write another rambling, long winded blog that doesn't actually address any specifics?

John said...

I would have already been in America had it not been for the outrageous tuition fees :)

My post was about Romney and whether his experience as a businessman was good or not, politically. I think it's a double-edged sword and think it's been overrated. That's my point, and it's specific enough.

DanL said...

You're prevaricating John. Here is what you said, "Here’s the problem: If you spend 30 years in a place with no real ethics, chances are you’ll forget what it really is. Mitt Romney spent three decades of his life being deep fried in business thinking. He might have been like the healthiest carrot in the beginning, but if you deep fry a carrot for 30 years, there won’t be many vitamins left."

Clearly you think that a lifetime businessman is unfit for political office.

And no, you are not specific enough. You didn't cite any examples of what Romney did that was unethical in business.

John said...

I never said he did anything unethical in business. Of course, private equity/restructuring is a tough business, but not unethical in itself. However, being in a business environment - in PARTICULAR corporate restructuring - means having to be extremely flexible and hold nothing holy. Not a very good thing in politics though, when it comes to ethical issues. I think Romney is decent enough when it comes to the economy (although I prefer huckabee even in that area), but he has made it a habit not to take social issues very seriously. My post simply contained my theory of why.

Anonymous said...

John, your post was pathetic and hilarious at the same time. Maybe you really don't know much about Romney, but before you write another hit piece, I suggest you do some homework.

Romney has accomplishments, talent and success in both public and private endeavors that Huck can only dream of.

And we both know who suffers in the ethics dept--hint: it's not Romney. Do you really want us to dig out the unpleasantries? Let's just say they don't call him The Huckster for nothing.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

John, I can't resist. You actually tried to make the point that Romney has no ethics. Yet, you gave zero evidence, other than he's been in business for 30 years. There's not a scintilla of proof that Romney has never been anything but above reproach in his business and personal life.

Simply breathtaking, if not surprising, coming from a Huck supporter. Just off the top of my head from memory:
Huck-
Stole furniture from the gov mansion.
Destroyed computer hard drives when he left
Handed out pardons to scumbags if they "came to Jesus"
Tried to pressure law enforcement to not investigate his son in connection withthe sick dog killing
Lied about involvement in the DuMond release
flat out ignored the victims families
Accepted inappropriate gifts when Gov
Registered for wedding gifts at the end of his term

The list goes on. There's more, but I'm too lazy to look it up. I remember too, that during the campaign, Huck honeyed up to his old TV friends--those 'ethically-challenged' prosperity gospel slimeballs who swindle money out of poor grannies.

Not to mention the endless, provable lies he told during the last election, and the excuses for the cops who were murdered by a violent criminal he released. He even tries to paint Clemmons as some poor man who was discriminated against because of his race. No bother to mention his violent past in and out of prison--which Huck clearly knew about because he said he read the record.

Your man is the worst of the worst in my book. He is a very very bad reflection of pastors everywhere, and if I were one of them, I would quickly and decisively distance myself from him--as many of them did during the election. Which according to Huck --had a 'chilling effect'. This man's lack of integrity knows no bounds.

I hope he runs, and the entire unvarnished truth comes out about him. Ethics, indeed.

-Martha

Closer To Home said...

I think John's first problem in addressing the appropriateness of a businessman/politician is that John doesn't know much about business, which significantly hampers his ability to speak to the matter.

As someone who has had to make payroll every week for the past 35 years, to assemble teams and accomplish agreed upon objectives, it seems someone who has burnished those skills in nearly uncountable organizations successfully is exactly what we need.

But don't let your lack of experience keep you from onionating. After all, you're young.

John said...

Martha and the rest of the witch hunters here...

I only pointed out that Mitt Romney has changed ethical positions and that he doesn't treat them seriously. I think it comes from the fact that he still thinks in terms of profit maximization, not principles. Businesses cannot afford to have ethics, other than the ones that are profitable to have. Ethics for the sake of ethics doesn't exist, simple as that. In politics however, it must exist, or society would have no foundations. Mitt Romney doesn't grasp that.

That is not to say that businessmen are stupid, evil, or anything else. All it means is that we cannot take for granted that they are good statesmen - and in Romney's case, he has proven time and time again that he is not.

Right Wingnut said...

Businesses cannot afford to have ethics, other than the ones that are profitable to have.--John

John, You have a warped impression of business. In my industry, ethics and integrity is everything. You might want to gain some real world experience before you opine on these things.

Right Wingnut said...

You just continue to dig your hole deeper....

I don't want to have to defend Mitt, but your comments have forced we to do so. If you find some specific examples of unethical acts committed by Romney (in the private sector), let us know so you can have a fair debate with the Rombots.

John said...

When did I say he did anything unethical in the private sector? He was great there, from all I know. I'm just saying his private sector thinking, which is great in the private sector, is not so great in governing.

Anonymous said...

What ethical position has Romney changed? It's all hogwash, John.

And, your whole article implied that Romney was unethical in the private sector. You can't say one thing, and then say you didn't say it.

John, have you considered, at the end of the day, that no one here or at race--regardless of who they support--agreed with you? In fact, everyone let you have it. Do you think there's possibly a reason for that that makes sense? Or are you determined to wear those enormous blinders.

-Martha

John said...

Martha, I'm used to being in minority. I'm a fiscal conservative from Sweden after all ;)

I just think my post was grossly misunderstood. I said Romney's thinking is alright in business, but not so good in government.

Hasn't he been prochoice for instance?

DanL said...

John, you began your article by blasting all business as being unethical. You really did, and no matter how much you want to strike a different pose now, that is what you did. Then you went on to say,

"Here’s the problem: If you spend 30 years in a place with no real ethics, chances are you’ll forget what it really is. Mitt Romney spent three decades of his life being deep fried in business thinking. He might have been like the healthiest carrot in the beginning, but if you deep fry a carrot for 30 years, there won’t be many vitamins left."

So, business is unethical, and because Romney was a business man, he was unethical. But you refuse to cite specifics because you can't.

DanL said...

"I said Romney's thinking is alright in business..."

that directly contradicts

"Mitt Romney spent three decades of his life being deep fried in business thinking. He might have been like the healthiest carrot in the beginning, but if you deep fry a carrot for 30 years, there won’t be many vitamins left."

Anonymous said...

o sale, John. You said:

"If you spend 30 years in a place with no real ethics, chances are you’ll forget what it really is. Mitt Romney spent three decades of his life being deep fried in business thinking. He might have been like the healthiest carrot in the beginning, but if you deep fry a carrot for 30 years, there won’t be many vitamins left."

That implies that Romney was in the business world so long that he lost his ethics. Which he CLEARLY DID NOT. You can't show one bit of evidence for your reckless implication.

And FYI: Romney changed his position on the life issue. He has never changed positions on gay rights. I believe there are many ethical pro-choice people. They are wrong, but it doesn't make them unethical.

John, if you believe your post was misunderstood, then perhaps you should clear it up. As it is, it was nothing more than a hit piece with no foundation of truth.

I have to also say that a Huck supporter writing an article about the lack of ethics in other candidates is quite ironic.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Oops, no sale.

Anonymous said...

No sale

Anonymous said...

Dan, it's probably a good thing I'm banned at race.

-Martha

John said...

DanL, "no real ethics" doesn't mean unethical. It means that businesses have the same ethics as customers and go with the flow. Kind of like Romney. Spending too much time in the world where ethics is simply a word you just in advertisement, not something you would stand for no matter what, you just might forget what the word really means and implies.

I don't understand why I bother with bullies like you DanL. Like I haven't had enough of people like you in my life already. I cannot understand how Bosman can allow your posts to remain on this site, in particular posts like these that are personal attacks against me.

DanL said...

It depends on what the definition of is is.

OhioJOE said...

Well, despite the fact that we are from different camp, I am a big fan of John and I wish that my English and writing was as good.

John: you are very knowledgeable about American politics and overall, your article was in deed good. However, I do not think that you know too much about American Business (although you might be an expert in business in general.)

On a sidenote, thanks for clarifying that non-ethical does not mean unethical per se. However, so far, it has been my experience that American business is actually more ethical than non-American business. While, I have never done business Mr. Romney directly (although I have purchased goods and services from Bain Capital,) there is no indication that Mr. Romney is an unethical man.

You are free to think of him as you will, (good, bad or indifferent,) but it is rather difficult to claim that he is unethical base on his business. I fully agree with you that his business expertise does not necessarily make him qualified for President, but I would leave the ethics question aside.

Finally, I do not think that Dan L is bully. Haha, he might think that you and I are bullies because we comment against his articles. You have the ability to challenge him by writting your own posts. I look forward to reading a lot more of what you have to say in the future.

BOSMAN said...

John,

"I cannot understand how Bosman can allow your posts to remain on this site, in particular posts like these that are personal attacks against me."

John I don't see it as bullying. I see it as someone using satire to challenge observations that you tend to throwout hoping that they sticks. When you criticize or make an negative observation on a candidate, you better be able to back it up.

BTW, The line on the top of this page under Right Speak, say's it all:

"A Place for All Conservatives to Speak Their Mind."

John said...

Ohiojoe, thanks for the kind words. Maybe ethics was the wrong word. What I mean is: Businesses have to constantly adapt to their environment. They cannot keep a product, or a price, out of principle. They have to "flip-flop" and go with the flow. Nothing wrong with that. But when politicians do it, then we have a problem. A politician who used to be a businessman, and a restructuring businessman too, may see "restructuring" as the best solution if you're down in the polls. They change opinions the way a business change products and advertisement.

Bosman, I respect your view. But the way DanL has been going after me, calling me acolyte and claiming I've said things I actually haven't said (like that Romney would be evil) qualifies as bullying if you ask me. If he would write a post about how great business experience is when running for office, then okay. But the way he is doing it right now is just plain childish, it's junior high-style (maybe he's going to junior high, I dont' know).

OhioJOE said...

"But the way DanL has been going after me," If you feel that way, just go after him until Bosman bans you.